Oral Answers to Questions

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Asylum Application Centres

Gregory Barker: If he will make a statement on progress in establishing asylum application processing centres in non-EU countries.

Charles Clarke: May I begin this afternoon by paying tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) during his most distinguished period of office, both as Secretary of State for Education and Employment and as Home Secretary? He has been an outstanding leader of this country and I pay tribute publicly to his tremendous work.
	The Government are discussing with European Union colleagues the best and most durable solutions to processing applications for asylum effectively, and our focus remains clear: first, to continue to offer protection to genuine refugees while protecting our asylum system against abuse and, secondly, to strengthen protection in regions of origin to protect people and reduce secondary movement.

Gregory Barker: It was 2003 when the Prime Minister first raised this issue and said that it would be done. Why has no progress been made at all? Why has there been no action?

Charles Clarke: There has been a great deal of progress. The fact is, as I hope Members on both sides of the House will recognise, that the key to solving asylum issues lies in international action, and in particular in action with our EU colleagues. Since the discussions at Thessaloniki to which the hon. Gentleman refers, there has been a substantial advance by many colleagues in the EU analysing the best ways to proceed, so there has been great progress since then.

Nick Palmer: Is the Secretary of State aware that representations have been made from some quarters that it would be possible to transfer all applicants for asylum to an island somewhere where no costs would be involved? Is he aware of progress in this fantasy island proposal?

Charles Clarke: I have heard that, and I was briefed to that effect. Frankly, the idea was so fanciful that I could not believe that anybody had put it forward in any kind of serious way. I therefore dismissed it as absurd, as I assume it to be. I cannot believe that anybody would seriously believe that that is the right way to proceed.

Keith Vaz: May I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position? I am absolutely certain that he will serve with great distinction. Will he assure the House that if processing centres are set up outside the United Kingdom in the applicants' countries of origin it will in no way divert resources from the immigration and nationality directorate, that general immigration work does need to be dealt with as quickly and as efficiently as possible, and that we should ensure that the good start that began in 1997 is continued, so that people have decisions as quickly as possible?

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's best wishes, which I very much appreciate. I can confirm that he is entirely right that the Government will remain utterly focused on creating the most efficient and fair system of immigration and asylum that we can achieve in this country, and that is where our resources will be directed.

Dispersal Orders

Anne Campbell: How many local authorities have sanctioned the use of dispersal orders since their introduction.

Hazel Blears: We estimate that dispersal orders were authorised in over 400 areas between January and September this year. Half of all crime and disorder reduction partnerships reported that dispersal powers had been used in their area.

Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend consider whether local authority intervention is necessary in the use of dispersal orders? My local authority, which is Liberal Democrat controlled, voted against the principle of dispersal orders in 2003, voted to use them in 2004 and is now considering whether to renew their use in 2005. Such dithering and delay has a bad effect on some of my constituents.

Hazel Blears: Not only do I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that these powers are used, but intriguingly the leader of the Liberal Democrats apparently called in 16 Liberal Democrat council leaders last week, read them the riot act and told them that they needed to get tough on crime, because his closest advisers believe that he is vulnerable to accusations of failing to be tough on thugs who terrorise the neighbourhood. What we have here is a party that decides to adopt such powers not as a matter of principle, but as a matter of naked, cynical, political opportunism.

John Cryer: I welcome the introduction of dispersal orders—[Interruption.] I hope that the Liberal Democrats will get a bit less excited. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that the mechanism for introducing them can be cumbersome and that the process can take a long time to carry out? Will she consider the possibility of having an interim dispersal order, which could then be subject to the current mechanisms? I am thinking particularly of Rainham in my constituency, where quite a lot of time is being taken to introduce dispersal orders and a more rapid system would be beneficial.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. He will know that we introduced interim antisocial behaviour orders for that very reason—to try to ensure that the courts can put an order in place very quickly indeed. We have 400 dispersal orders and they have been fairly easy to use, but I am more than happy to look at his suggestion. Some members of the Association of Chief Police Officers have suggested that interim dispersal orders may prove useful in dealing with town centre disturbances associated with binge drinking. I am more than happy to look at those ideas.

Julian Brazier: Where is the joined-up government between, on the one hand, the new power for issuing dispersal orders and, on the other, the arrangements under the Licensing Act 2003 by which up to 500 people can hold a rave, creating any amount of nuisance in an area, at just 48 hours' notice after serving the police with an application?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman will know that in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 we strengthened the powers to act against gatherings of people in the very circumstances that he describes. We are trying to work across government not only through the Anti-social Behaviour Act, but by working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on town centre guidance. We are also working with young people themselves to ensure that we can divert many more of them away from antisocial behaviour and into more constructive activities. This Government have a very good joined-up policy across the piece.

David Taylor: In the village of Whitwick in North-West Leicestershire, the local Hermitage leisure centre has been the focus over a 12-month period of sustained antisocial behaviour by young people towards local residents and staff who work there. Does the Minister agree that the decision by North-West Leicestershire district council to sanction a dispersal order is to be welcomed, but that applications need to be the result of effective partnership with the local police and that, in parallel with the application for a dispersal order, some provision needs to be made for positive activities for young people in the area concerned, perhaps with concessionary prices targeted at the age group concerned?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The way in which the orders are framed means that a superintendent of police has to suggest the order, but must get the agreement of the local authority for it to be made. Fundamental to the use of the dispersal power is that kind of partnership working to ensure that the local authority is drawn into the process and that the issue is not simply about enforcement. The whole of our antisocial behaviour strategy is about a twin-track approach of tough enforcement and support, particularly for young people, to get them involved in a range of activities so that we can prevent them from getting on to that cycle of crime and disorder for the future. We have to have tough enforcement to ensure that communities such as that of my hon. Friend are protected from the harassment and intimidation that all too often take place in this country.

British Passports

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the rules for applications for a British passport.

Des Browne: British passports are issued in the United Kingdom under royal prerogative by the UK Passport Service. Citizenship is a matter of law, primarily under the British Nationality Act 1981, and is usually determined by the facts of a person's date and place of birth and those of his or her parents. An applicant for a passport will need to submit the relevant supporting documentation to establish both their nationality and their identity. Guidance on this documentary evidence can be found in the notes for guidance that are published in the passport application form pack.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I thank the Minister for the constructive discussions that we have had about the case of my constituent, Captain Warwick Strong, who served Her Majesty's armed forces loyally in the most severe troublespots of the world and was prepared to lay down his life, but who, because of the regulations, was not in the United Kingdom on the qualifying day five years before his application in 2002? It seems now that he is eligible for indefinite leave to remain, and hence for a British passport afterwards. Will the Minister give me an assurance that these applications, in a full, open and deserving way, will be fast tracked?

Des Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I, too, found my discussions with him in relation to this case constructive. As I undertook to do, I have reviewed Captain Strong's application over the weekend. His application from 2002 has been reviewed several times, and I am content that the decision taken to refuse his application was correct. Those who did not resist the temptation—I should say that the hon. Gentleman has not behaved in this way—to behave in a disgraceful way in relation to Captain Strong should reflect on the fact that his application was refused on the basis of a mandatory rule that was introduced in the 1981 Act by a Conservative Government.
	As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, since his original application, Captain Strong appears to have had a further two years' residence in the United Kingdom, bringing his total residence to six years, which is more than the five years required for naturalisation as a British citizen. If he still wishes to become a British citizen, the first thing that he needs to do is acquire settled status. As an ex-member of the armed forces who has served four or more years, he should be eligible for indefinite leave to remain in the UK under Her Majesty's forces' new rules introduced on 25 October this year. Once settled, Captain Strong would be free to live and work in the UK indefinitely and to apply for British citizenship. I invite the hon. Gentleman to encourage Captain Strong to apply. If he wants to ensure that that application is dealt with properly, I will give him separately from this answer the name of an official in the immigration and nationality directorate who will deal with it.

Antisocial Behaviour

Sally Keeble: What plans he has for the policing of antisocial behaviour associated with late-night drinking.

Hazel Blears: A Christmas alcohol misuse enforcement campaign is under way in all 43 police force areas in England and Wales. Town centres across the country are being targeted in an effort to crack down on alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder. We will continue to work closely with the police to tackle that.

Sally Keeble: Will my hon. Friend examine rule changes to make it possible for police authorities routinely to charge the leisure industry much more of the costs of policing late-night drinking? Not only are the costs high, but policing late-night drinking is a drain on police officers' time. It seems unfair that the general taxpayer should pay the costs of an industry-related problem.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is right. I am delighted that her local force is playing a full part in the Christmas alcohol misuse enforcement campaign. The industry should contribute towards the extra costs that arise from not only policing, but the impact of late-night drinking on our town and city centres. We are committed to a voluntary approach and are working on business improvement models. If the voluntary approach does not have a significant impact on the problems, we will re-examine the matter early in the next Parliament, in which case our review might well include further legislation.

Cheryl Gillan: Four years ago, when he was a junior Home Office Minister, the new Home Secretary launched his action plan for dealing with alcohol-related crime. Unfortunately, the number of violent crimes linked to alcohol has risen by no less than 10 per cent. Does the Minister think that the new Home Secretary's strategy has been a roaring success?

Hazel Blears: Our new Home Secretary has an excellent record in that area, and I have no doubt that he will go from strength to strength driving down crime, making our communities safer and contributing positively to the life of this country. The alcohol misuse enforcement campaign that we ran over the summer was extremely successful. The police visited 30,000 premises, issued 4,000 fixed penalty notices and arrested 5,000 people. In the areas in which the campaign was conducted, serious violence decreased by 9 per cent., which is real evidence that good police action makes a difference.

Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend knows that Scarborough is one place in which that summer-time initiative was conducted. Will she commend the organisers of a recent conference on the night-time economy, which many participants from the industry attended? Will she take the opportunity to come to Scarborough and see how much progress has been made through the type of partnership that she extols from the Front Bench and that we in Scarborough try to deliver in the community?

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in commending the work of the partnership in Scarborough, which has been so effective in tackling binge drinking. Like many other seaside towns, Scarborough sometimes experiences a particular problem with its night-time economy. My hon. Friend makes the point that the problem is a matter for not only the police but local authorities and transport operators, and we all have a responsibility to try to make our communities safer. I shall be delighted to consider my hon. Friend's kind invitation to have a day out—or perhaps a night out—in Scarborough in the new year.

Bob Laxton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the cost of the new licensing arrangements that will be undertaken by local authorities will hammer them considerably? My own local authority, Derby city council, has estimated that it will find some of those costs punitive. Much as it supports the new arrangements, as do I, the Home Office needs to consider the heavy costs and financial burden that they will impose on local authorities.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has given an undertaking that the licensing fees will be sufficient to cover local authorities' inspection and enforcement responsibilities. That has been confirmed by the Deputy Prime Minister. Clearly, at the Home Office we have an interest in ensuring that local authorities have the full resources to be able to carry out the enforcement as well as the licensing process itself. A consultation is being undertaken about the level of fees to be set. My hon. Friend can be assured that we will continue to make these representations.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Lady responded earlier to a question about licensees selling to intoxicated people. I suggest to her that another problem urgently needs addressing: high-alcohol alcopops that are produced by the drinks industry, aimed at young people and often drunk in excess. We see that in town centres day in, day out. Does the hon. Lady honestly think that the drinks industry will regulate itself, or do not the Government have the bottle to take it on?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the alcohol industry, in common with most sectors, has some extremely good operators who want to get rid of the rogue element in their industry, but some irresponsible people are still running promotions such as, "All you can drink for £10." We are determined to ensure that we drive out such irresponsible marketing, which is why we are working on a code of practice to ensure that we have decent standards in the alcohol industry. This Government have given unprecedented attention to that problem. I entirely reject the notion that we are not tackling those interests head on, because we are absolutely determined to try to change the culture. That is very difficult in this country, but we have to do it because these are very serious problems indeed.

Householders' Rights

Henry Bellingham: what plans he has to bring forward proposals to change the law on the rights of householders to defend their property.

Paul Goggins: Current law makes it clear that a person may use reasonable force in self-defence or in the defence of his or her family or property. However, we recognise that there is public concern in this area and the review of murder will be looking at self-defence in cases where someone dies. In addition, we are looking with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service to see whether the position needs to be clarified in order to send out a strong message that the law is on the side of the victim, not the offender.

Henry Bellingham: On 6 December, the Lord Chancellor said that the law relating to householders' rights did not need changing and that he would not support my hon. Friend's Bill. However, on 8 December, the Prime Minister said that it was most likely that he would
	"support a change in the law."
	A national debate about householders' rights has been raging for six years. When will the Government listen to people and actually have a clear policy?

Paul Goggins: What the Prime Minister did say in the reference that the hon. Gentleman mentions was that
	"we are on the side of the victim, not the offender."—[Official Report, 8 December 2004, vol. 428, c. 1160.]
	Our starting point is that the current law strikes the correct balance between the rule of law and the right of people to defend themselves. However, there is of course a public confidence issue. We are consulting ACPO and the CPS and we will listen carefully to their advice.

Patrick Cormack: As there is such widespread public concern, why does not the Minister invite my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) to discuss his Bill and what it will contain in order to try to create between them a measure that the whole House can support?

Paul Goggins: We do not intend to invite such discussion, but we look forward with interest—I am sure that that applies to hon. Members of all parties—to the publication of the Bill of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and the ensuing debate in the House.

Patrick Mercer: I am sorry that the Under-Secretary does not feel the need to discuss such matters with me face to face, but I probably understand that. The crux of the Bill is the phrase "grossly disproportionate", which is already used and has been enshrined by the Government in civil law as a test for whether one should be able to sue. Will the Under-Secretary explain whether he agrees or disagrees with the use of the phrase for the law that we are considering? In view of the question that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) asked, whose side is the Under-Secretary on: the Lord Chancellor's or the Prime Minister's?

Paul Goggins: I am not afraid of face-to-face discussion; indeed, I greatly welcome it. That was not the suggestion that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) made. I am prepared to discuss the specific measure now, from the Dispatch Box and, indeed, at any time, just as I would be prepared to discuss issues with any hon. Member.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the phrase, "grossly disproportionate", and I look forward to other opportunities to hear his definition of the phrase. The Crown Prosecution Service would be required to make a judgment, as it does at the moment, about what constitutes "reasonable". He may be interested in the comment of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who told The Sunday Telegraph that he would look for clear evidence of excessive force before considering a prosecution. If it is not excessive, it is reasonable. That is an excellent starting point for our considerations.

Traffic Police (West Midlands)

Jim Cunningham: How many traffic police are operating in Coventry and the west midlands.

Fiona Mactaggart: I understand from the chief constable of the west midlands that at 30 November there were 302 full-time equivalent dedicated traffic police officers in his force, 38 of whom operated in Coventry. A further 89 full-time equivalent posts are allocated to the central motorway policing group.

Jim Cunningham: Given that we are entering the Christmas period, will my hon. Friend tell us whether the Department is prepared to hold discussions with the Department for Transport to reduce the number of drink-related accidents in Coventry and the west midlands?

Fiona Mactaggart: We undertake such work all the time. My hon. Friend will have heard the response of my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety to earlier questions about the alcohol campaign this winter. One of our aims in that campaign is to persuade people to avoid alcohol abuse, not only in town centres but when they get behind the wheel of a car, where they can become dangerous. We know that those campaigns can be successful and help to reduce the incidence of driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Under-Secretary give us the figures for the number of prosecutions in Coventry and the west midlands in the past five years for driving without due care and attention and dangerous driving when under the influence of alcohol? Will she compare those with the figures for the number of people caught speeding in the area?

Fiona Mactaggart: I do not have those precise figures, but we know that the new technology that we are using increases significantly the number of people who can be arrested for a range of offences while driving. Automatic number plate recognition—ANPR—technology has been rolled out in the west midlands and 13,500 people have been arrested for offences that include theft and burglary. Prosecutions of those who have been caught for speeding increased substantially as speed cameras were introduced. In practice, as they have the deterrent effect of which they are capable, the peak of arrests for speeding has begun to decline. The number of court proceedings in the past couple of years reduced from 154,000 to 150,000 to 144,000. Speed cameras are beginning to work.

Identity Cards

John Barrett: What his latest estimate is of the total cost of the identity cards project.

Des Browne: The cost of biometric passports is estimated to be £415 million per annum by 2008–09. Re-using that passport infrastructure for ID cards will save money on issuing both separately. For United Kingdom citizens, the cost of operating ID cards, on top of passport costs, is £85 million. We estimate an additional £50 million per annum to provide verification services.
	In addition, as we set out in November 2003, we estimate set-up costs in the first three years to be £186 million. There will be some additional costs beyond this period. We are continuing to work on these estimates and will inform the House when we are in a position to provide updated figures.

John Barrett: People throughout this country want to see the Government fighting crime, dealing with terrorists and reducing fraud and illegal immigration. Will the Minister explain why he is not spending that massive amount of money on more police, efficient security services and enough customs officers to do the job, instead of this ID scheme, which is a piece of plastic and a massive waste of money?

Des Browne: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he uses a phrase that he gets from his colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), which he has been trotting out in the media all morning—this ID scheme is a piece of plastic. Of course it is not a piece of plastic. It is an ID card supported by a modern database, which will collect biographical information in relation to people and match it to their biometric information to give a gold standard of identity. That will be expensive, but the collection of the biometrics is required to let people have the sort of travel documents that they will need for the 21st century, so that work will have to be done in any event.
	It would be a dereliction of the Government's duty if, in doing that work, we did not take advantage of being able to secure the identity of the citizens of the United Kingdom to do just the things that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) encourages us to do, which are tackling serious crime, terrorism, illegal immigration and illegal working, but, most of all, to give the people of this country what they want—80 per cent. of them tell us they want it—which is a secure form of identity.

Neil Gerrard: Can my hon. Friend give us an example of a major Government IT project that has both come in on cost and worked?

Des Browne: All Governments have faced challenges in relation to developing IT programmes that serve the needs of the people of this country. I am sure that the Opposition spokesman on my area of responsibility probably goes red every time he thinks of the wasted money that the last Government incurred in relation to an IT scheme for immigration and nationality: they sacked half the workers before they brought it in and it then had to be scrapped because it did not work.
	Increasingly, however, there are IT schemes that are working and delivering. The best example in my area of responsibility is the UK Passport Service, which has a database of 44 million people and provides a first-class service.

David Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us had hoped that the new Home Secretary would reassess the position on identity cards, including cost, instead of making woolly-minded attacks on those of us who have considerable doubts about whether an identity card scheme will do any good whatever? Will he bear it in mind that continental countries with identity cards have the same problems of illegal working, illegal immigration and the rest of it, which clearly have not been resolved by identity cards?

Des Browne: My right hon. Friend is well known to be a supporter of identity cards and was before he became Home Secretary. It was highly unlikely that in his early days as Home Secretary he would want to rethink a policy that he was already committed to.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) raises an issue that is yet another great Opposition canard in this debate: that identity cards do not help other countries—for example, in their fight against terrorism. He always trots out the argument that the Spaniards had the Madrid bomb and they also have identity cards, but he has not asked the Spanish Government whether identity cards helped them to confront terrorism. I have, and they tell me that they do. Spain has 700 convicted terrorists in prison and is very successful in its use of identity cards to interdict terrorism.

Drug Misuse

Jane Griffiths: What progress has been made on tackling crime associated with drug misuse.

Caroline Flint: I am pleased to inform the House that between April 2003 and June 2004, recorded acquisitive crime, such as theft and burglary, fell by more than 12 per cent. We know that people with drug addiction problems are hugely responsible for such crime. The drug interventions programme provides a route out of crime and into treatment. So far, crime is falling faster in the drug interventions programme areas than elsewhere across the country, as drug addicts get out of crime and into treatment.

Jane Griffiths: My hon. Friend will know, I hope, that excellent work has been done in Reading with those who have committed drug-related offences. Does she agree with me and with the crime reduction initiative drug user project in my constituency that publishing photographs of women who sell themselves on the street to feed their drug habit will not help such women, but that treatment will?

Caroline Flint: I am pleased to say that not long ago I visited Reading, where I met members of the drug action team and the police. Reading is doing a very good job both in ensuring that there is capacity for treatment and in dealing with offenders. My hon. Friend will also be aware that I am currently undertaking a review of issues related to prostitution. There are serious issues in relation to the antisocial behaviour caused by street prostitution, but I agree with her that 90 per cent. of street prostitutes are addicted to class A drugs, and we need to examine how to get them into treatment. That is why the Drugs Bill proposes an intervention order for adults, which can be provided where an antisocial behaviour order has been issued, to get people into treatment. I hope that that will be used in this area.

David Davis: I regret that I guessed wrong as to which question the new Home Secretary would go for. Craving your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, may I take a moment to congratulate him? He and I have known each other and, I dare even say, been friends for about 30 years. I look forward to seeing him for many years across the Dispatch Box, albeit, perhaps, in some time, from the other side.
	The last time the Home Secretary was a Home Office Minister, he said:
	"I believe the most likely impact of a relaxation in the law would be to increase consumption . . . and I think that would be bad for the people concerned and bad for society".
	Does the Minister agree?

Caroline Flint: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we reclassified cannabis for a number of reasons. First, we had A, B and C categories, and we felt that having cannabis in B was not appropriate. We are trying to have a credible discussion with young people and adults about the different harms of different drugs. Cannabis is still illegal, however. Secondly, we felt that reclassifying cannabis would allow the police to devote greater amounts of time and resources to priority areas such as class A drugs. A recent Metropolitan Police Authority report showed a 53 per cent. decrease in arrests for cannabis possession, which has saved a huge amount of officer time, which can be better used, for example, to shut down crack houses—150 have been shut down this year—and to support efforts to tackle those organised criminals involved in drug distribution and supply. That is the right way to tackle the problem.

David Davis: I do not think that that was a yes or a no. Since the Home Secretary left his previous position in the Home Office, drug-related offences, criminal damage, theft, robbery and violence against the person, all drug-driven, have all gone up. Sadly, our British teenagers top the European Union league of drug abuse. Now that the Minister has a new Home Secretary, will she consider reversing the declassification of cannabis?

Caroline Flint: No, I will not consider reclassifying cannabis, because there are serious issues in relation to understanding the nature of different drugs. All illegal drugs have different harms associated with them, and we need to give a credible message to young people. The figure on young people who have used cannabis is 26 per cent., which has gone down, and some of our figures suggest that it will decrease further in future. Our strategy must recognise the crime connected with those involved in drugs, which is exactly what we are doing by putting record amounts of money into treatment and policing to tackle the problem. The evidence is in what I said earlier: recorded acquisitive crime has gone down, and the number of offenders going into drug treatment is increasing day by day.

David Cairns: Given that 95 per cent. of the heroin on Britain's streets originates in Afghanistan, and that the United Nations has reported a 64 per cent. increase in poppy cultivation in Afghanistan in one year, can my hon. Friend assure me that she will work closely and urgently with our counterparts across Europe to crack down on the trafficking of this evil crop before it reaches our shores and causes even more crime and misery?

Caroline Flint: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I know that he has paid a huge amount of attention to this area, and committed a lot of his time to examining the problems underlying source and supply. The issue in Afghanistan is complicated, and involves tackling the people involved in developing the crop. It is also about livelihoods—alternative livelihoods for the people involved. He makes an important point, because the drugs go through Europe, through a number of different countries, so our work across the European Union, and also with countries such as Turkey, is essential in trying to stop the supply of drugs to the UK.

Anne McIntosh: Does the hon. Lady accept that cannabis use among British teenagers has doubled since 1997? In constituencies such as mine, which includes many small market towns such as Sowerby, Thirsk, Bedale, Boroughbridge and Easingwold, petty crimes and vehicle crimes are fuelling cannabis use, and the Government have failed to deal with that problem.

Caroline Flint: As I said to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) a moment ago, cannabis use among young people has been going down in recent years, but we still take the problem very seriously. That is why we have the Blueprint education project—one of the first longitudinal studies that examines how children in years 11 and 12 can better understand drugs and their implications and dangers. We need to have a credible message about these issues. FRANK, which was launched in May 2003, has had 3.5 million visits to its website, and 657,000 phone calls have been made to the service. That shows that there is information out there for families and young people—but we should never be complacent about such issues, and we need to ensure that we continue to drive down the number of people who peddle drugs. The Drugs Bill will do that by, for example, making it an aggravating factor to sell drugs near schools or use children as couriers.

Brian Iddon: Should we not give preference to those who volunteer for treatment without committing a crime, rather than coercing people into treatment after they have committed a crime?

Caroline Flint: We know that drugs fuel crime, and in the drug interventions programme we find that when we test people and get them involved in assessment, they are more likely to take up treatment. That is why we feel that in the Drugs Bill we need to move to testing on arrest, but also to making assessment a mandatory part of the process. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the fact that the Home Office is focusing on the relationship between crime and drug addiction does not mean that people who volunteer for treatment, but who have not committed a crime, will lose out. We are putting more money in, working with the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills, and treatment has increased across the board, including treatment for people who self-refer and have not committed a crime.

David Borrow: A few months ago, as part of the parliamentary police scheme, I visited the Tower project, run by Lancashire police in Blackpool, which works with persistent offenders who are drug users, enabling them to break their drug habit. That has led to a 30 per cent. reduction in acquisitive crime in Blackpool. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an example of how joined-up police work can achieve the results that we all want—less drug use and less acquisitive crime? Will she commend Lancashire police for their work, and does she agree that such a scheme could be adopted in other parts of the country?

Caroline Flint: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the success of the Tower project. Such projects have informed our thinking on how to tackle offenders when drugs are at the heart of their offending behaviour. It is part and parcel of the drug interventions programme, and our work with persistent and prolific offenders, to look at projects such as the Tower project, and I commend Lancashire police for their challenging and innovative approach to these serious issues.

Police Numbers

Paul Goodman: if he will make a statement on police numbers.

Derek Wyatt: if he will make a statement on police officer numbers.

Charles Clarke: This Government have delivered record police numbers. There are now nearly 140,000 police officers—an historic high, and an increase of more than 12,500 since 1997. I hope that the shadow Home Secretary will intervene on this question and indicate how he feels about that development.

Paul Goodman: Chiltern Vale police, who are not paid London weighting, regularly lose experienced officers to forces such as the Metropolitan police, who are. An experienced local officer recently suggested to me that the Met might like to pay a transfer fee for poaching police from other forces. Will the Home Secretary have a serious look at that constructive proposal?

Charles Clarke: I understand the issue raised; indeed, my honorary Friend has made this point consistently for many years—[Hon. Members: "Honorary?"] I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; I meant my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety. The House will be interested to know that the number of officers in the Thames Valley force has increased by 444 since 1997. I do acknowledge the existence of the recruitment issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, but the fact is that we are succeeding in increasing the officer numbers in the Thames Valley force, as elsewhere.

Derek Wyatt: We are grateful for the many more police officers, community support officers and neighbourhood wardens, but will my right hon. Friend include the funding of neighbourhood watch schemes in the totality of crime prevention? We think that is a very good idea.

Charles Clarke: It is a very positive idea; indeed, encouraging police officers to work in partnership with forces such as those that my hon. Friend mentions, and with their local communities through neighbourhood watch, is an important approach. We are considering the best funding regimes to incentivise that approach, and I will consider his proposal in that context.

Bob Russell: The Secretary of State might wish to know that in the past few days Essex police has called up for training as potential police officers some 50 people who have been waiting for well over a year to be called into the police force. Can he confirm that the minute they begin training, they will appear on the roll as police officers? Is such recruitment going on around the country, and does it have anything to do with 5 May?

Charles Clarke: Recruitment of police officers is certainly going on around the country: indeed, it has been going on since 1997, which is why we have more police officers now in Essex—as elsewhere in the country—than we did in that year. Such recruitment has nothing to do with any forthcoming election; rather, it is to do with the policies that we have advanced. The issue in the election, which the main Opposition must address, is that they have stated clearly that they would cut spending on Home Office resources in real terms.

Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend will be aware that since 1997 there has been a welcome net increase of almost 100 in the number of officers in Durham constabulary, but is he aware that as a result of next year's grant settlement, and of proposed changes concerning the training of probationary police officers, the chief constable of Durham might have to cut the number of officers by nearly 40 if he is to balance the budget? Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and other Durham Members to discuss the situation?

Charles Clarke: I will meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues, but I should point out that most police authorities recognise that the settlement announced a couple of weeks ago, following the pre-Budget report, is a very generous and positive one that allows continuing investment in policing throughout the country. That said, I am happy to have the meeting that he requests.

Andrew Mitchell: Given the rise in crime across Britain that has occurred while the right hon. Gentleman has been away from the Home Office—and, indeed, throughout the tenure of this Labour Government—and given the near doubling in the number of violent crimes and the worrying fall in detection rates, why does he not accept that we need more fully trained policemen and women, and implement the Conservative party's costed policy promise to provide 40,000 more police? Is that not what people in Britain want to hear from the Home Secretary and this Government today?

Charles Clarke: First, crime has reduced under this Government, not increased, and in that regard the contrast between our record and that of our predecessors is dramatic. Secondly, the shadow Chancellor is making these Conservative policies, which state explicitly that in real terms there would be no extra money for policing; in fact, as with everything else, there would be a real terms cut in spending. I wish Conservative Members would own up to that fact.

Immigration

Piara S Khabra: What measures he has taken to stop clandestine entry into the UK from France.

Des Browne: The measures taken include the deployment of state-of-the-art detection technology, the levying of civil penalties on hauliers, and closer co-operation with carriers and port authorities and, principally, with our EU counterparts. We also now have full immigration controls in place in Calais, Boulogne and Dunkirk, which include the searching of tourist and freight vehicles using a variety of detection methods, ranging from sniffer dogs to carbon dioxide probes. All these measures have led to a 23 per cent. decrease in the number of detected clandestine entrants into Kent in the first six months of 2004, compared with the last six months of 2003, and to a 36 per cent. increase in the number of detections in Calais in the same period.

Piara S Khabra: I thank the Minister for that encouraging answer. He will be aware of the Prime Minister's meeting with EU leaders last month to discuss a five-year immigration and asylum plan aimed at streamlining policy. In that context, will the Minister tell the House whether any further progress has been made on this issue?

Des Browne: Thanks principally to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), we have further plans to improve existing security in the ports to France and others. Following the recent meeting between my right hon. Friend and the French Interior Minister at Calais on 15 November, we announced the roll-out of further UK detection technology to the port of Dunkirk by summer 2005. We continue to work with our EU partners to drive down illegal entry across the EU, with regular exchanges of intelligence and regular joint operations impacting on organised human smuggling. Indeed, on 14 December, as a result of one of those operations, we saw the conviction of Mohammed Shahzad, who was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on the charge of conspiring to facilitate illegal entry to the UK.

Peter Luff: Is the Minister aware that many of those who enter the UK clandestinely from France end up working in Worcestershire, where officers of the excellent West Mercia constabulary quite regularly apprehend them? When the police ring the immigration and nationality directorate, it suggests that these clandestine entrants should be issued with a travel permit to go to Croydon. How many of those entrants does the Minister believe take up the kind invitation of IND staff to pop down and see them in Croydon?

Des Browne: I am not in a position to discuss in detail with the hon. Gentleman the activities of the West Mercia police. I would say, however, that it cannot have escaped his notice that we have recently significantly increased the detention estate that is available to the IND. Indeed, it has more than doubled since the Government came to power. We now have state-of- the-art facilities as opposed to the inappropriate detention facilities that we inherited from the previous Government. Now we are turning our attention to the challenge faced by local police forces in the continued detention of people discovered in the back of lorries as clandestine entrants. Thankfully, of course, the number of such entrants has decreased significantly, largely as a result of the steps that the Government have taken.

Witness Support

Vera Baird: What plans he has to encourage liaison about witness support between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

Paul Goggins: We are putting victims and witnesses at the heart of the criminal justice system. The "No Witness, No Justice" project provides support for witnesses through a local partnership between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. That will include a witness care unit in every area of England and Wales by March 2005.

Vera Baird: The "No Witness, No Justice" scheme is very good. It is primarily about providing information about the case and getting rid of any obstacles that stop people coming to court. However, there is more to getting people to court than transport and child care. It is often about criminally injured victims needing specialist support from domestic violence advocates or rape crisis services, for example. There are real concerns now that the police and the CPS are starting to see witness care as a monopoly and are discouraging specialist referrals. Will my hon. Friend ensure that all witness care units adopt the approach taken by my own in Cleveland, which is to set up a directorate of help groups and actively take responsibility for facilitating specialist contact where it is needed?

Paul Goggins: I always take the advice of my hon. and learned Friend in these matters, because she is very close to the agencies in her constituency that deal with them. Victim support is also an essential ingredient in the partnership that we are seeking to develop between the voluntary sector, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. I can confirm that there will be three witness care units in my hon. and learned Friend's criminal justice area, the first opening in Hartlepool on 31 January, the second at Middlesbrough Crown court in May and the third at Middlesbrough magistrates court in October. Her comments about the importance of the specialist help that is sometimes required will be taken seriously by those agencies. It is essential to provide appropriate support so that witnesses can come to court and ensure that criminals are convicted.

Bill Olner: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate all the people who have helped to set up the new justice centre in Nuneaton where the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the courts have come together under one roof? Having done that, will he also encourage the CPS to be a little more positive in ensuring that cases are brought to court, because victims of crime often feel that they have been left out?

Paul Goggins: The central emphasis of our policy is to put the victim at the heart of the system. I commend the agencies in Nuneaton, which are clearly working together effectively to ensure that witnesses and victims are given support. Up and down the country, not least in Liverpool, where a community justice centre opened only a few days ago, we are seeing justice related much more to the communities where people live and where the offences about which we are so concerned take place. As we see partnerships developing between local communities and agencies, we will see greater justice being delivered.

Departmental Expenditure

Jim Knight: What assessment he has made of the potential for efficiency savings in his Department beyond those proposed in the Gershon review.

Fiona Mactaggart: The efficiency savings recommended across Government by Sir Peter Gershon's efficiency review equated to an average of around 2.5 per cent. per annum cumulatively. In assisting Sir Peter, the Home Office proposed a target of increasing value for money by £1.97 million, which is roughly 3 per cent. a year cumulatively. The target provides a challenging but realistic ambition for the Department and the police service to increase the efficiency and effectiveness with which key public services are delivered.

Jim Knight: My constituents are keen to see a greater proportion of money spent on front-line services, such as an increase in police community support officers. Does the Minister agree that there is a limit to how far that process can go and that if the Conservative party was allowed to impose its £20 billion cuts—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Policing

Iain Wright: What plans he has to increase the presence of police on the streets.

Hazel Blears: We have secured and will maintain record numbers of police officers. There are now around 140,000 officers in England and Wales. There will be at least 5,500 community support officers by next March. The neighbourhood policing fund will help increase the number of CSOs to 24,000 by 2008.

Iain Wright: On 4 January, 24 police probationary constables will start their training in Cleveland police. That is in addition to the extra 228 police officers that Cleveland has had since 1997. Their training will be different from most because it will be locally based, on the streets and in their local communities, rather than provided through the more traditional residential method. What will the Minister do to ensure that that approach continues after their training so that the public see, and are reassured by, the increased number of police provided by the Government?

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to welcome the 24 new constables who will start to police my hon. Friend's area from January. The fact that they will undergo community-based training means that they will work with local people from day one rather than going into weeks and weeks of residential training. In developing our new style of neighbourhood policing for the long-term future of the country, I am absolutely determined that we get police officers, community support officers and wardens working with local people and doing joint tasking and co-ordinating. They will direct their activities towards the priorities that local people set, which is why, in the national policing plan, we made tackling antisocial behaviour and other low-level crimes one of our top priorities. Those are the things that local people want us to do.

Angela Watkinson: Will the Minister give an assurance that funding for police constables and community support officers is entirely separate, and that the increase in the number of community support officers is not going to have an adverse impact on the number of police constables who can be trained?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Lady will know that I and other Ministers have gone on record time and again to say that the record number of police officers in this country will be in addition to the community support officers whom we are now developing. There is absolutely no case of community support officers being recruited at the expense of police officers. They have different jobs to do; they complement each other; they work together; they are a strong partnership. We are committed to maintaining record numbers of police officers and ensuring that we have more visibility and accessibility—the things that local people want to build safer communities.

Young Offenders

Peter Pike: What measures he is taking to reduce the reconviction rate of young offenders.

Paul Goggins: We have completely reformed the youth justice system with a new structure, innovative new sentences and investment in early intervention. This approach is already bearing fruit, with the rate of reconvictions of juvenile offenders falling by 6 per cent. between 1997 and 2002.

Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we are moving in the right direction, there is still a long way to go? Far too many young offenders are reconvicted. Some of the figures are appalling in terms of the number of offences committed. Will he make it an absolute priority to provide education and training to young people so that they can get proper employment when they reach the right age and do not have to commit crimes to live?

Paul Goggins: Education and training are critical in trying to reduce rates of reoffending. Lancashire Connexions is working closely with youth offending teams in Lancashire, in Blackburn, Darwen and Blackpool, in order to ensure that after young people come out of young offenders institutions, they get back on track and back into work. It is essential that we see that as a priority, and we will continue to do so.

Belmarsh Judgment

David Heath: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the legislative consequences of the House of Lords judgment that the detention without trial of aliens held in HMP Belmarsh under the anti-terrorism laws is unlawful.

Charles Clarke: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement that I made last Thursday, 16 December 2004. Let me reaffirm that the case is about the compatibility of our domestic legislation with the European convention on human rights. As the Human Rights Act 1998 makes clear, Parliament remains sovereign and it is ultimately for Parliament to decide whether and what changes should be made to the law.

David Heath: I think I welcome the Home Secretary's rather brief and complacent reply. The judgment of the Law Lords was in terms of unprecedented condemnation and could not have been more unequivocal. Lord Hoffmann said that the case called into question
	"the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention."
	That has now been reinforced by the resignation of Mr. Ian MacDonald as special advocate, in response to what he termed an "odious" law. He is not alone in that opinion.
	Will the Home Secretary accept that the Liberal Democrats fully understand the difficult balance between ensuring the safety of the public and the security of the nation on the one hand, and rights under law on the other? We did not expect the Home Secretary precipitately to set aside the judgment of his predecessor as to the national interest, but can it really be the case that his Department has made no contingency plans for the present circumstances? What work, if any, has been done to explore the eminently sensible suggestions of the Newton committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights? Specifically, when will he introduce legislation on the use of intercept evidence, and why are the Bills currently before the House not suitable for that purpose?
	Those detainees should be prosecuted and tried. Clearly there are difficulties, but should we not now seek consensus in this House on a proper solution? Certainly we would be happy to work with the Home Secretary and with others to develop an appropriate solution to the problem. However, simply renewing the present deeply unsatisfactory legislation is not an option.

Charles Clarke: My answer was brief, but not complacent. The fact is that a committee of nine Law Lords has spent the last 11 weeks considering the issues raised by this case in great detail. It would have been discourteous and wrong to respond instantaneously to such consideration. It was and is my duty to examine very carefully the judgments of those Law Lords and to come to conclusions. In making my assessment, my duty is to look first to the security of this country, and in that context I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks about working on a basis of consensus. I hope that his party will be prepared to do that, but in so doing that it will consider carefully the precise legal measures.
	We have of course considered the questions raised by the Newton committee and a number of other representations, including from the Joint Committee, but we shall look carefully at the Law Lords' judgment. I shall not be rushed into coming to a conclusion on the right course to take simply to meet some conception of brevity that the hon. Gentleman has to offer. We shall look at the issue properly. We shall come to proper conclusions and bring them to the House. The most important point, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), now the Foreign Secretary, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)—the previous Home Secretary—made clear on several occasions, is that it is Parliament that must decide how best we deal with this country's security interests. I shall report to Parliament and Parliament will come to its conclusions, but my report will be based on a detailed and full understanding of the decisions and views of the Law Lords in their consideration.

John Denham: The House will welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to careful consideration of these issues. When the House is invited—presumably early next year—to consider how, or whether, we want to change the law as it relates to the group of foreign nationals in Belmarsh, it will be enormously helpful if we have the clearest idea of what further anti-terrorism measures the Government propose to cover British citizens, as flagged up in the Queen's Speech. Can my right hon. Friend give us any hope that when we look at those issues, we shall have a better idea of what will be in the draft Bill referred to in the Queen's Speech?

Charles Clarke: First, I appreciate the work of my right hon. Friend and his Committee in considering this matter with due care. The best way that I can respond to his question is by saying that it would be better if we looked at such situations in the round, as he suggests, so that we have a comprehensive view of them. That is not to say that particular difficult questions are not raised, but he is right to say that consideration will be best effected if we are clear on how we are pursuing the issues.

David Davis: The Opposition do not underestimate the difficulty that the judgment presents for the Home Secretary in balancing his duties, but it is impossible to overstate its importance. It is only the second time since the second world war that a panel of nine, rather than five, Law Lords has sat. The Government cannot claim to be surprised by the judgment. When the Act was moved, we warned that the longer the detention went on, the more difficult it would be to justify. The powers taken by the Government at the time were viewed as temporary; presumably that is why the previous Home Secretary commissioned the Newton report.
	The report was published exactly a year ago this week and in that time exactly nothing has happened. I remind the Home Secretary of some of the recommendations and reiterate the points made by the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who was quite right on this matter. The committee suggested that the power of freezing order be repealed, as it has not been used. Will the Government accept that? The committee recommended that it should be possible to use intercepts in court, as the Liberal spokesman said, and as we, too, have argued. We intend to table an amendment to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill to try to get the Government to accept changes to the law. Will the Home Secretary accept that, or undertake changes himself?
	The committee also recommended proposals on plea bargaining. There are some changes to Queen's evidence in proposed legislation currently going through the House. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the changes meet those requirements on plea bargaining? Newton recommended that the Home Office carry out research into alternatives to the use of powers granted under part 4. What research has been carried out? What progress has been made?
	Even after evidential changes that we recommend, there may still be cases of grave concern to the security services that cannot be tried. I am conscious that there is at least one case of an alleged terrorist released under licence, case G. A three-member panel ordered his release after he was diagnosed as psychotic. G is electronically tagged and has to report to the police five times a day. He is not allowed to use telephones, mobile phones or computers, and visitors are restricted. Does that give us a model for similar cases in the future if the courts cannot deal with them?
	I reiterate that I do not recommend the release of those prisoners immediately, but in the interests of natural justice I recommend that the Government move as fast as competently possible to sort the problem out legislatively. If the Home Secretary does that, we shall give him every support.

Charles Clarke: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's concluding point; it is important to reach a conclusion of these matters as soon as possible so the House can decide clearly how it wants to proceed. I was not particularly surprised at the Law Lords' judgment. In fact, it would be a surprise if there were not deep controversy about the ethnical, philosophical and moral issues that are involved. These are difficult questions, and it is not surprising that people will come to difficult and complicated judgments on them. I reiterate that I have the particular responsibility of looking at the national security of this country—I appreciate the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on that question—but I simply will not be rushed into taking a view on this in the first few days of my stewardship of my office, without looking at the situation in the round. The assurance that I can give to the House is that, early in the new year, I will come with proposals for the House to consider and we can then look at them in the round, which is as it should be.

Frank Dobson: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement. As one of those who voted for the Act that the House of Lords has decided is contrary to the human rights legislation, for which I also voted, I recognise the major dilemma that the Government face in trying to reconcile maintaining the security of the people of this country with our treasured reputation for the rule of law and the maintenance of natural justice. So in the spirit in which the Home Secretary has made his statement, I urge him to look carefully at the proposals from the Newton committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The objective of terrorists is, in the end, to persuade us to bring our sacred institutions into disrepute so that we can be mocked throughout the world as hypocrites. I know that he recognises that, and I hope that the House will be able to come up with proposals that reconcile the two needs.

Charles Clarke: I appreciate the tone and style of my right hon. Friend's remarks and, yes, I can give him the assurance that I will seek to address this matter in the way that he suggests. I should like to make one observation on what he said. Some of the terrorist organisations active in the world that we seek to contain are about destroying every fundamental freedom that we have; not only the fundamental freedom of the House to debate a range of issues, but the rule of law itself and the right of the media to discuss questions in a general way. Their explicit aim is to destroy all those things, which hon. Members throughout the House have sought to build and develop over many years. We must defend ourselves against these attacks. The best way to defend ourselves in these circumstances is a matter for debate—it is in that spirit that I appreciate my right hon. Friend's remarks—but we cannot run away from this. When we read some people's comments, we see that they do not appreciate the seriousness of the matter. Our obligation is to take that seriously and then to decide the best course, for precisely the reasons that my right hon. Friend gave.

David Trimble: I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has emphasised in his response the supremacy of Parliament on these matters. That is hugely important. I also endorse his statement that his approach will be based fundamentally on questions of national security and the need to protect the community. I urge him to consider that whatever he does should be based simply and essentially on the legislation framed to meet the needs of protecting the whole community, not on little quirks of immigration legislation.

Charles Clarke: I think that I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. Our existing legislation is based on a foundation of principle, which I see as my duty to seek to defend. That is the way in which we must approach this matter and the way that, historically, the House has sought to approach these matters; the House would wish to do so in the same way in the future.

Jean Corston: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer to this question and congratulate him on emphasising that he will proceed cautiously. Reference has been made to the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which, as he knows, I chair. I urge him to consider one of our recommendations: that intercept material should be admissible in court, as it is in many other countries. Will he confirm whether he will discuss with our security services ways in which that material can be admissible, while protecting personnel and methods?

Charles Clarke: I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. I will consider the recommendations of her Committee, especially the one that she cited. However, let me make the point that this Government implemented the Human Rights Act under which her Committee was established and the Act under which the Law Lords gave their judgment. We should be proud of the Act and of our approach. As my right hon. Friend said, we were clear from the outset during our first debates on the matter that difficult and not straightforward questions such as those that we are discussing would be raised, but it is better to address them with a discussion of human rights and its importance rather than trying to ignore them. I put that remark on record while giving a full commitment to examine carefully her Committee's recommendations.

Teddy Taylor: As there is obvious concern about any individual who is kept in prison for a long time without charge or prosecution, will the Home Secretary explain to us and the public the opportunities that the people in prison have to put forward their arguments if they think that the complaints made against them are inaccurate, or perhaps created by someone unfairly?

Charles Clarke: They have the opportunities that the current law gives them; that is the state of affairs. It is important to recognise that our legislation is designed to deal with threats from organisations that want to destroy any such rights and abilities in any respect whatsoever.

Jeremy Corbyn: Would the Home Secretary care to reflect on the fact that the big problem with the legislation is that it gives him the power to imprison foreign nationals, which is obviously discriminatory? Does he not think that we have crossed a rather dangerous rubicon, in that politicians, rather than independent courts acting under the criminal law, are allowed to imprison people?

Charles Clarke: As my hon. Friend knows—his record on these matters is well understood in the House—there is a substantial process of review of any of the decisions taken in the area. That includes legally qualified people, so that judgments can be made on precisely the issues that he describes. However, I come back to the absolutely fundamental point; the House must decide whether it wants its Government to try to work to defend national security in these circumstances and to put that as a central question. That issue remains for my hon. Friend, for me and for every other Member of the House. I am sure that we will continue to discuss these matters, but I remain firmly of the view that one cannot simply assume that there is a benign set of organisations out there with a specific and interesting point to make. There are people who are determined to do what they can to destroy the fundamental foundations of our society.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have opposed the powers since their introduction. Any legislation that he introduces must reflect the judgment of the highest court in the land. He must do away with the right to hold people in detention indefinitely. Should he not be trying to create an offence of associating with terrorists or terrorism, which might, in appropriate circumstances, lead to a custodial sentence?

Charles Clarke: I hear that suggestion and know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has long experience of debating these matters in the House. I assure him that I shall examine his suggestion carefully when making the considerations to which I referred earlier.

Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend is quite right to say that he will come to the House with proposals early in the new year—we look forward to hearing them—and to point out that terrorists are bent on destroying our fundamental institutions and our institutions of liberty. One of the fundamental institutions of which we were most proud was the fact that we did not detain people without trial or without allowing them to see the evidence on which they were kept in custody. Such things are fundamental, but we believe that the legislation has already given the terrorists one of the victories that they want. Will he examine carefully the suggestions of the Joint Committee and the Newton committee? In particular, no one understands why intercepted communications cannot be used if they might convict people, provided that the communications have been subject to proper safeguards. Finally, there are people in prison at the moment about whom we are talking in something of the abstract. What will happen to them in the meantime while he cogitates?

Charles Clarke: I think I dealt with my hon. Friend's points earlier. I repeat that I will return to the House with proposals relating to all of them. I also repeat to my hon. Friend and the House that our obligation to do all we can to inhibit those who want to destroy our fundamental institutions of freedom is critical, and I am determined to uphold it.

Alan Beith: When the Home Secretary rightly warned against an instant response, did he recall the instant negative response that his predecessor gave the Newton committee when we recommended a range of measures which, taken together, could deal with these foreign nationals and, indeed, with United Kingdom citizens about whom similar suspicions were felt? Why has no work been done in the interim to prepare the new legislation that we thought should be prepared by the end of the year?

Charles Clarke: I think I have already dealt with those points as well. I have committed myself to considering the issues involved, and to returning to the House to discuss them in the round.

Phyllis Starkey: Although most of those affected by the decision are in Belmarsh, one is in Woodhill prison in my constituency. I entirely accept the Home Secretary's description of this issue as a difficult one, requiring us to balance the right of the individual to a fair trial against the need to protect the general public. When the issue returns to Parliament, will he be as open as he can be with Members about all the information behind these cases, and explain why the measures on which the Government decided were the only way in which the matters could be handled at the time? Back Benchers want to understand the reasoning behind the Government's current proposals.

Charles Clarke: I can assure my hon. Friend that I will indeed be as open as I can be, although I think she and the House understand that difficult security issues are involved.

Elfyn Llwyd: During the passage of the 2001 Act, many of us could not quite square detention without trial with article 6 of the European convention on human rights. May I urge the Home Secretary to act quickly and positively? Otherwise, the certification that Bills comply with the Human Rights Act 1998 may well become a meaningless endorsement.

Charles Clarke: I return to the point with which I began. The Human Rights Act requires a derogation to be indicated if necessary in a particular case. That was done in this case, quite properly. It is then for Parliament to decide how to respond to the circumstances. I do not think that our approach involves any devaluation of the Act, which has been followed to the letter and in accordance with processes that were established when the Bill was passed.

Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend spoke of the threat of international terrorism. When carrying out his assessment, will he take account of what happens in other countries facing similar threats? Will he also confirm that the individuals currently being detained could leave tomorrow, and return to the countries from which they come?

Charles Clarke: I can confirm that. I had not thought to highlight the point, but it is important and arises specifically in the case of those detained in such circumstances. I can also confirm, as I did earlier, that we will consider the situation in the round.

Tony Baldry: Does the Home Secretary accept that the Law Lords did not make what he described as an ethical, moral or philosophical judgment, but a legal judgment? Does he accept that that judgment is now a statement of law regarding the relationship between human rights legislation and terrorism legislation? Since the judgment, he has given the impression—unintentionally, I am sure—of being rather contemptuous of it.

Charles Clarke: I am not at all contemptuous of the Law Lords' judgment. Theirs is the very highest court, and they judge the law in the way described by the hon. Gentleman. However, as an experienced parliamentarian, he will understand the relationship between their judgment and the duties and obligations of Parliament. That was clearly established at every point during the progress of the Human Rights Act, and rightly so. That has also been made clear by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside, the former Home Secretary, who I am delighted to see is present. That has been clear throughout the whole of this discussion. The Law Lords understand that very well and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands it properly, but it is in the light of that that the judgments have to be made by this Parliament.

Nick Palmer: Few of us envy the Home Secretary in the current dilemma, any more than we did his predecessor, who I am also extremely pleased to see in the Chamber. Many of us who feel that there is excessive hysteria about asylum issues in general still do not feel that it will be possible to defend free entry to Britain for people whom we believe wish to support terrorist acts in Britain. I consulted constituents on this last year, and my impression is that there would be widespread support for powers to prosecute people for co-operation with terrorists—I say co-operation rather than mere association—as an alternative to detention under current law, and that that should apply to British nationals as well as to foreign nationals. Will the Home Secretary consider that in his review?

Charles Clarke: I will consider that, but my hon. Friend used the word "envy" in an interesting way when he said that he did not envy me or my predecessors the responsibility here. There is a key point here. If we choose to live in a democracy, we have to face up to the responsibilities of that and take the decisions necessary to ensure that we continue to live in a democracy. That may not be enviable, but it is not only my responsibility and the responsibility of other Members of the Government; it is for all Members of the House to think how to carry out such responsibilities properly. I would argue that that extends to wider groups in society as well. It is not a question of my having a particularly unenviable responsibility; it is a question of all of us facing up to our responsibility to preserve democracy when it is under these kind of threats. I am glad that the issue will be debated in the House in the new year so that we can consider how to address it.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: In considering the matter, will the Home Secretary also bear in mind the political dimension of the difficulties that we and the Government have in rationally criticising the state of affairs in Guantanamo bay while we ourselves also have imprisonment in this way?

Charles Clarke: I will look at those issues, but my hon. and learned Friend makes the point extremely clearly. The obligation to determine how to defend our democracy is particularly an obligation on our learned Friends in the House, who should consider how the law can play its proper role. That is a key question for us all.

Brussels European Council

Tony Blair: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the European Council that took place in Brussels on 16 and 17 December.
	I begin by congratulating Prime Minister Balkenende and the Dutch Government on their handling of the Council and, indeed, on their entire presidency. I also want to congratulate the presidency on achieving the historic agreement to begin accession negotiations with Turkey. This is a hugely important and welcome moment for Europe. Turkey lies at the intersection of three areas of strategic importance to Europe—the middle east, central Asia and the Balkans. So a stable and democratic Turkey will help to strengthen our influence and role in all three areas.
	Turkey is an important and trusted NATO ally. It will take over the international security assistance force lead from Britain in Afghanistan and replace Eurocorps in Kabul next February. Turkey is a strongly growing economy which, as a market of 70 million people, imports over €40 billion worth of goods from the EU each year. Our own trade with Turkey is now over £4 billion a year and is growing at some 30 per cent. annually.
	The fact that Turkey is beginning negotiations to join the EU shows that those who believe that there is some fundamental clash of civilisations between Christian and Muslim are wrong. Muslim, Christian and other religious faiths, can work together in democratic, tolerant and multicultural societies. Turkey's membership is therefore of fundamental importance for the future peace and prosperity of Britain, Europe and the wider world.
	The European Council agreed that Turkey should begin negotiations on 3 October 2005, during the British presidency of Europe. Before this happens, however, Turkey will need to complete its latest reform package. The Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Erdogan, confirmed during the European Council that he was ready to sign before 3 October the protocol to the Ankara agreement extending the European Union and Turkey customs union to the 10 new EU member states. That does not constitute formal legal recognition of the Republic of Cyprus. The accession negotiations thereafter are likely to last at least a decade. Turkey's performance, including in relation to respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights, will be closely monitored, and we will want to see a satisfactory track record of implementation before each of the negotiating chapters is closed. Moreover, there is the option of long transition periods, derogations or even permanently available safeguards, should these be required.
	It is worth emphasising how much Turkey has achieved under Prime Minister Erdogan's leadership. He has now taken through nine separate packages of legislative and constitutional reform, bringing the military under civilian control, improving minority rights, abolishing the death penalty, significantly improving freedom of expression, liberalising the economy and reforming the penal code. Those reforms must continue, but this House should recognise the extraordinary progress that has been made. The developments in Turkey over the past two years, following the reforms across central and eastern Europe of the last decade, surely demonstrate the influence and power of the European Union as a motor for change and a force for good.
	There were other significant decisions at this European Council. We confirmed the conclusion of accession negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania; both should join in January 2007. We decided to begin accession negotiations with Croatia on 17 March 2005, subject to its full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal. We decided on several new areas of action and co-operation in the fight against terrorism.
	We welcomed the agreement reached with Iran on nuclear issues and future co-operation, following negotiations conducted by the UK, France and Germany. If, however, this process is to succeed, as we all want, Iran must sustain its full suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities.
	The European Council confirmed its full backing for next year's elections in Iraq and its commitment to support them, finance UN protection and provide continuing reconstruction assistance. The violence and terror directed against Iraqis wanting to have free elections should simply make us redouble our efforts to ensure that democracy defeats terror and those elections take place. Whatever the original disagreement over the conflict in Iraq, I am pleased to say that that is a unified European position today.
	We also committed ourselves to support financially, technically and politically the democratic transition in the occupied Palestinian territories, and we reaffirmed our commitment to achieving through the road map a negotiated two-state solution. Finally, we committed ourselves to helping to ensure that the rerun of the elections in Ukraine is free and fair, including through sending a substantial number of EU observers.
	At this European Council, we achieved an historic British objective with the decision to begin accession negotiations with Turkey during the British presidency next year. If evidence is needed of the benefits of positive engagement and leadership in Europe, here it is, and I commend it to the House.

Michael Howard: I thank the Prime Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement.
	In respect of the middle east process, we support the emphasis in the declaration on accelerating implementation of the road map. On Iran, is the Prime Minister confident that this time the Iranian Government will honour the undertakings that they have given on their nuclear programme?
	The communiqué refers to the importance of the millennium development goals. Cannot the European Union itself make a substantial contribution to the alleviation of international poverty by further reforming the common agricultural policy, allowing developing countries greater access to European markets and making the European Union's aid programme dramatically more effective and focused on the poorest countries in the world?
	I endorse what the Prime Minister has said on Ukraine, and I welcome the successful conclusion of negotiations on the membership of Romania and Bulgaria and the date for opening negotiations with Croatia.
	The communiqué also refers to the EU budget. With such rapid changes taking place in the size of the EU, is it not essential that strict limits are now set on its budget? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will veto any EU budget above the limit of 1 per cent. of Europe's gross income?
	The European Court of Auditors has refused to sign off the accounts for the past 10 years, and the former chief accountant of the EU, Marta Andreasen, says that the auditors cannot clear 95 per cent. of the budget and that the system does not allow them to say whether the money is being spent well or fraudulently. What action are the British Government taking to remedy that completely unacceptable state of affairs?
	The summit was dominated by discussions on Turkey. I welcome the agreement that was reached on the membership negotiations and the prospect of Turkey providing an invaluable bridge between the rest of Europe and the Islamic world. Does that not lay to rest any claim that the European Union, or the west as a whole, is in any way anti-Islamic in nature? And should it not be seen as a very positive development for that reason alone? The Prime Minister was quite right to pay tribute to Prime Minister Erdogan for the reforms that have been introduced under his leadership and for the progress that has been made. I very much hope that those negotiations will reach a successful conclusion and that Turkey will, in due course, become a full member of the EU.
	Does the Prime Minister agree with all those who have said that Turkish membership of the European Union is incompatible with the constitution? Those people include the chairman of the European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee and the godfather of the constitution himself, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who said:
	"The European constitution . . . was not designed to accommodate a power the size of Turkey".
	Does that not reinforce our view that the constitution is out of date before it is even ratified? Are reports true that the Prime Minister himself accepted that in a private meeting with Chancellor Schröder? Does he agree with his own Minister for Europe, who, with the ink barely dry on the constitution, now says that the
	"Treaty won't be the last word"?
	Earlier this year, the Minister for Europe signed a document calling for new EU taxes, a common immigration policy, a single welfare system and the surrender of Britain's seat on the UN Security Council. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister ought to know about that. Is that what the Minister for Europe meant when he said that the constitution would not be the last word? Is that the view of the Government? If not, why is the Minister for Europe still in the Government?
	Will the Prime Minister tell the House the latest position on the Bill to ratify the constitution and allow for the referendum? It was promised four weeks ago in the Queen's Speech, but there is no sign of it—perhaps he will tell us why. Why does not the Prime Minister have the courage to start the debate that he says that he wants? Why does he not set a date next year for the referendum, so that the British people can have their say and so that we can give a lead to Europe, instead of following others? Will he now tell the House what he plans to do if the constitution is rejected?
	Is not the fact of the matter that the constitution is a block on the kind of reform that an enlarged Europe needs? Was not the Prime Minister's own former economics adviser right—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Labour Members laugh, but the Prime Minister selected his economic adviser and presumably listened to him for many years—when he said that
	"the constitution is a missed opportunity to put the EU on a sound footing",
	that the constitution will
	"entrench Europe's economic failings and drag Britain down too",
	and that the only reason why the issue of bringing more power from Brussels to Britain was not on the agenda was that
	"the government was too gutless to put it there"?
	The Prime Minister mentioned the British presidency of the EU in the second half of next year. Is not that an ideal opportunity for Britain to put the case for reform in Europe—the case for a Europe that gets out of the way of business, so that wealth and jobs can be created? Is not the UK presidency an ideal opportunity to put the case for a modern, flexible Europe: a Europe that is ready for the challenges of the 21st century; a Europe that transfers powers back from Brussels to the nation state; and a Europe based on co-operation and not on coercion? Is it not more vital than ever that, by the time of the EU presidency, Britain has a Government with the courage and conviction to put the case for the kind of Europe that the British people want to see?

Tony Blair: First, let me deal with the issues that occupied us at the Council. In relation to the middle east peace process, we agree that it is important that we move that forward. I am confident that Iran will honour its obligations. I hope very much that it will; if it does not, we must be prepared to take further action. The leadership role that we have been able to exercise with France and Germany has been important at least in getting a bigger measure of co-operation than we have had for many years.
	On the millennium development goals, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about further reform of the common agricultural policy, access to EU markets and the aid programme. All that will have to be negotiated with our partners; that is why it is important that we retain some friends and influence in Europe.
	In relation to the EU budget, we are leading the fight to ensure that there is a limit of 1 per cent. That is our position. Again, we continue to work with other countries on the issues raised by the Court of Auditors.
	In respect of Turkey, of course I agree that it is very clear that it should not be a question of an anti-Islamic EU; I think that that myth has been laid to rest by these successful negotiations in Europe.
	Let me come to the issues that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised on the EU constitution. First, Turkey is fully in favour of the constitution. I am sorry to have to disappoint him about that. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing is actually against Turkey coming into the European Union. He is entitled to take that position. Fortunately, however, Europe has decided that Turkey should come into the European Union.
	As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position on the constitution, I have to tell him that as far as I am aware every other Government in Europe is in favour of it. He has no support for his position from any other Government, be it a conservative Government, a social democratic Government or a liberal Government. Has he got any ally in any Government on his position? Absolutely not. So when he talks about how we should use our influence in Europe, the fact of the matter is that he would completely marginalise this country in the European Union.
	Of course, his real desire is not to oppose the constitution, but to renegotiate the existing terms of membership. That is right, is it not? That is the official position of the Conservative party today. It is true that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who was brought back into the shadow Cabinet, says that that would be "easy", but the former Conservative party chairman dismisses it as "virtual reality" and the former Conservative Prime Minister as "absurd". The last Conservative Chancellor said that it would
	"provide a terminal blow to our EU membership or end in . . . a humiliating u-turn".
	The last Conservative Foreign Secretary described it as
	"little more than a euphemism for us to quit Europe".
	Let me read what was recently written by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) about the claim by the Leader of the Opposition that anyone not carrying out Conservative commitments would have to resign. He said:
	"Howard told us that any minister who failed to deliver on commitments would be fired. Perhaps the next Tory Foreign Secretary should keep a signed letter of resignation in his pocket, because it is hard to see how he could extract Britain from Europe's common fisheries policy and social chapter".
	That is the reality. Unless something is renegotiated by agreement, it is not renegotiation. That is why, to be frank, at least the United Kingdom Independence party has an honest position on this. It wants to get Britain out of Europe because it recognises that renegotiation on those terms is not possible. The truth is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot point to a single ally for his renegotiation—not one. [Interruption.] Well, we have tried this before. Who are the allies? Who are the European countries that are allied to him? Can we hear it? Right—silence. He has to get all the other 24, then 26, then 27 to agree. It is a fantasy policy. It is dishonest as a policy, because it says that one can do something that everyone knows cannot be done. He may say that it is supported by the British people, but I doubt it in the end. I think that the British people will understand that getting this country out of Europe is a mistake—that it would isolate us unnecessarily and do damage to our business and industry. That is why I believe that the Conservative party continues, on this issue and others, to be unelectable.

Charles Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement on the significant summit of a few days ago. Does he agree, when we hear some of the sceptical sounds that are made about Europe, that after a summit that has welcomed the finalising of accession treaties with Romania and Bulgaria and set dates for their accession, thereby opening important accession discussions with Turkey and Croatia, it is a bit odd that all the welcome new countries—democracies emerging from the shadow of the cold war—are queueing up to join the institution, while others would have us believe it is a manifest disgrace and disability to us all? People should reflect on that when they hear some of the nonsense that is talked about the welcome progress on the European front.
	Does the Prime Minister agree that opening discussions with Turkey sends a positive signal about the European Union to the rest of the world? The European Union is open, secular and united by democracy and human rights. Given that, will the Prime Minister go a little further than he went in his statement about how he—or the Foreign Secretary—views the squaring of the circle regarding Cyprus and the legitimate, continuing interests of our country in that context? I appreciate that that is a difficult question.
	Given the Home Secretary's answer to an urgent question earlier, does the Prime Minister find it difficult when attending European summits to square indefinite detention without trial at Belmarsh with the statement in the summit's conclusions:
	"Efforts to combat terrorism must respect human rights and fundamental freedom"?
	We all agree with that, but it does not sit comfortably with the exchanges in the Chamber a few moments ago.
	The Prime Minister properly referred to Iraq. Will he give us some indication of the Government's current thinking on possible requirements for the deployment of more British troops in Iraq? Did he have a chance at the summit to speak to his Polish opposite number about Iraq? Poland confirmed only last week that it will pull out 1,700 troops—approximately half its force—from Iraq in February. Against the electoral timetable, which we all support, that raises legitimate anxieties about what further commitment, if any, may be required from our country and armed forces.

Tony Blair: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his general welcome for the summit. His comments about the new countries are right. The Conservatives have got themselves into a truly bizarre position: the 10 new countries that have joined the European Union all support the European constitution; Romania and Bulgaria, which will also join, support the constitution, and Turkey, which is coming in, also supports the constitution.

Michael Howard: Give people a vote.

Tony Blair: We have made it clear that people in this country will have a vote and the final say in a referendum. However, what is the sensible position for a Government to take? We appreciate that, in the end, the question will be put to the British people, but is it sensible for a Government who have to work in Europe and who welcome the new countries that are joining to take a position that is so at odds with every other Government in Europe?
	The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) mentioned Turkey. Of course, I hope that Turkey would have made progress on democratic and political rights in any event, but European Union membership has played a dramatically important part in ensuring consent in countries for the big process of change. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Cyprus. Under the first EU presidency in 1998, when we dealt with Turkey and Cyprus, I personally would have found it inconceivable that we could get Turkey to support the Kofi Annan plan. The fact is that it did support that plan. Indeed, it was the Greek Cypriots who, in the end, rejected it. That will have to be resolved by negotiation, but it is a sign of just how much Turkey has changed under this magnet of EU membership.
	In respect of Belmarsh, I obviously cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I would just make this point. Of course it is extremely important to pay close attention to the civil liberties of our citizens—indeed, this Government incorporated the human rights legislation in British law—but I hope people also understand this from the position of decision takers, who are desperately anxious to prevent terrorist attacks in this country in circumstances where there are people who our security and police services are telling us are a direct threat to this country's security, who are free to leave this country at any time, and who do not have rights of citizenship here.
	In those circumstances, we have tried to constrain how we act as much as possible to make it compatible with human rights. Of course I understand people's concerns—I do not disrespect them at all—but I think that our primary responsibility has to be to protect the lives of the citizens of this country. As we have seen from 11 September, from Madrid and elsewhere, there are terrorists, I am afraid, who are prepared to cause destruction on a massive scale.
	Incidentally, it is true to point out that many other European countries have very tough security legislation. It is not always the same as ours, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is also very tough. Just as I came into the Chamber, I heard an Opposition Member talking about a possible criminal offence in respect of the right of association. That is a very wide criminal offence to introduce. It applies in certain other European countries, but frankly it gives rise to exactly the same debate about civil liberties as we are having over Belmarsh.
	Finally, in relation to Iraq and troop requirements, it is correct that some of the 11 or 12 European countries with troops in Iraq will be either reducing their capability or pulling out, mainly because they have already taken a position to end their troop deployment in Iraq at a particular time. However, at the same time we are building up the Iraq security forces. We keep the question of additional troops under review the whole time, but we have no current plans to deploy.

Ben Chapman: I very much welcome the decision to enter into accession talks with Turkey, but does my right hon. Friend accept that the issue of Cyprus will indeed loom large as a background, and that, in this context, the way forward is to revert to consideration of the Annan plan and to recognise that the situation we find ourselves in is, as he says, that the Greek Cypriots, who voted against the Annan plan, find themselves with the full benefit of EU membership while the Turkish Cypriots, who voted for it, find themselves in isolation—without direct flights, without EU aid and without direct trade?

Tony Blair: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. We strongly support the EU commitment to end the isolation of Turkish Cypriots. That is one of the issues that we have discussed before at the European Council. Direct flights to the north of Cyprus would of course contribute towards ending that isolation, but this is an immensely complex legal area, although we are examining the issue. We also support proposals from the European Commission for direct trade between north Cyprus and the EU and financial aid to north Cyprus. We are working to ensure that those are agreed on, so I hope we show that we are earnest and have good intentions in that regard. I hope that, over time, we will be able to see the negotiation of a satisfactory solution to Cyprus.

William Cash: The Prime Minister may have seen a recent poll which showed that 18 to 24-year-olds and 65 per cent. of the Scottish voters have said that they would like to move to associate status. In relation to the question of renegotiation, which he has just raised with the Leader of the Opposition, does he deny that it is open to Parliament to legislate inconsistently, if necessary, with the European Communities Act 1972 itself, or indeed with rulings of the Court or with treaties or other laws of the acquis communautaire?
	Does the Prime Minister therefore understand that if there is a no vote in the referendum, which he has promised, he himself will be faced with renegotiation? What will he do if there is a no vote?

Tony Blair: I will, of course, accept the verdict of the people. When the hon. Gentleman talks of associate status, he is talking of his desire to get to associate status. That is at least an honest position for the Conservative party to take, as it is the effect of what it is saying. Whatever the Front Bench wants to do to try to walk around the issue, to try to keep together the two bits of the Conservative party, the fact is that were we to renegotiate the terms of membership, there is no doubt—this is not about renegotiating the EU constitution but about renegotiating existing terms of membership—that that would end up either with this country being utterly humiliated and having to accept that we could not do it, or, I agree, with us headed for associate status. He says that that is what people in this country would want. Well, he can adopt that position, but I am afraid that I would be prepared to challenge it. If people do think that, it is right that we should stand up and say that European Union membership, and being part of the European Union, is good for this country, our business, our trade, British jobs and British influence in the world. We will get to that debate, which we will have in the course of the referendum on the constitution, but at least he is adopting an honest position: that he sees a no vote in the constitution referendum as the first step towards associate membership, which means "out of Europe".

Dennis Skinner: Why does the Prime Minister not acknowledge for once in a while, when answering the Tory Opposition on the question of the European Union and its predecessor, the Common Market, that there is a set of revolving doors? When the Tories were in power for 18 years, they went into the Common Market revolving doors, and when they went into opposition in 1997, they came out in opposition to the Common Market. That is what has happened ever since 1973. A few of us have stayed in the same place while the revolving doors have been going round. Will he accept that when we fight the next election, we will fight it on the strength of this Labour Government, not on whether we believe in the Common Market or are against it?

Tony Blair: I take my hon. Friend's point about revolving doors—as people go into government, they become in favour of retaining Britain's membership of the European Union. That only indicates to me the sanitising effect of government, which is why I am so keen that we carry on doing it.

Alex Salmond: Can the Prime Minister tell us a bit more about the positive engagement and leadership that he intends to exert during the British presidency, and is he looking forward to that six months as potentially the climax of his political career?

Tony Blair: We can certainly play an important role in Europe, in relation to economic reform and taking forward the G8 presidency issues, and of course we will begin the Turkish accession negotiations. I look forward to doing that and much more.

Ian Davidson: May I urge the Prime Minister to ignore the voices of those Euro-enthusiasts who not only welcome the discussions with Turkey but urge its immediate full entry into the European Union, because full entry means freedom of movement? All the evidence is that currently up to 30 million Turks would wish to move to the west. May I urge him to reject that policy, which has been advanced by the Liberal Democrats, and to stick to the Government policy, with "the option of long transition periods, derogations, or even permanently available safeguards, should those be required"?

Tony Blair: I profoundly disagree with my hon. Friend, not just with what he said, but with its tone. It would not be helpful or sensible to start having a debate about Turkish membership of the European Union on the basis that millions of Turks are about to flood across Europe. That is not what has happened in respect of the eastern European countries that have come in: the vast majority of the people who have come here have come to do jobs. A tiny number of them have even made benefit claims, and the vast bulk of those have had those claims refused.
	A lot of people who come to this country make a vital contribution to it. There will be a significant period of time before Turkey becomes a member of the European Union, and, as my hon. Friend acknowledged in the latter part of his question, there will then be a series of safeguards, transitional periods and so on available to us. Of course, Turkey will be a very different country by that time. It has made remarkable strides, under the impulsion of European Union membership, over the past few years, and I am sure that a democratic and stable Turkey, anchored in the European Union, will be a very important part of our security for the future.

David Curry: In the long-term battle to combat the causes and circumstances that lead to terrorism, is not the opening of negotiations with Turkey likely to be much more important than the invasion of Iraq, because it demonstrates the importance of the soft power that the Europeans are good at, alongside hard military power? Will the Prime Minister perhaps persuade President Bush to recognise the importance of that European experience in creating stability and democracy in Europe and in the wider world, and to create more effective partnerships rather than depending almost exclusively on the hard power in which the Americans are so pre-eminent?

Tony Blair: I have to say that there are occasions on which we need both the hard and the soft, and if we succeed in Iraq—as I am sure eventually we will, despite the actions of terrorists and insurgents—that will be a big force for stability and democracy in the region. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Turkey's accession is an indication of the force for good that the European Union can be. I have no doubt that President Bush will probably agree with his point about Turkish membership of the European Union, when he comes over to Europe some time later next year.

Keith Vaz: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his work in ensuring that Turkey is allowed to begin negotiations. I know that he has worked long and hard on this issue for the past seven years. However, does he share my concern about the level of opposition in some countries, such as France and Austria, where a large number of people are against entry? Some of them express the opinions put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), and it is extremely important that we campaign on this issue in Europe. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that that happens, and what does he think Parliament should do to aid that process?

Tony Blair: President Chirac is to be congratulated on his courageous stand on Turkish accession to the European Union, in difficult circumstances for him domestically. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are countries where public opinion is against Turkish membership. The best way to persuade them is to make the argument calmly and reasonably, to state the fact that this will happen over a long period, with the ability to make the transition, and to point to the fact that fears have been raised in most instances of new countries acceding to the European Union. It is clear that Turkey represents a different order of accession—but it is for that very reason that we have set aside a significant time for the process. I hope very much that Britain continues to be a force in favour of Turkish membership of the European Union, and I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about the long-term benefits.

Francis Maude: Does the Prime Minister not feel that although the decision to embark on negotiations with Turkey is welcome, the idea that those negotiations will take, as I think he said, at least 10 years is rather depressing, and risks losing the focus in Turkey on exactly what kind of changes are needed, particularly on resolving the issue of Cyprus? Turkey and Turkish Cypriots were for so long the block on progress, but, that block having been removed, there is now a risk that the deadlock will persist long into the future, which would destabilise the European Union.

Tony Blair: We must be careful about that, but as for the statement about the process taking at least a decade, of course it all depends on how quickly Turkey fulfils the criteria, can close the negotiations, and so on. That statement has been made several times, and I do not think that it comes as news to Turkey. In the end, this is a question of trying to manage what, as I have said, most people accept is a different order of enlargement. Turkey coming into the European Union is not the same as an eastern European country of 4 million or 5 million people coming in. That is why we need to give people confidence that the criteria will be adhered to, and that there is the possibility of making transitional arrangements. However, subject to that, the time scale will constitute a prediction. Once accession negotiations begin, the question of how quickly they can be concluded will be in the hands of the Turks themselves.

Parmjit Dhanda: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about not only Turkey but Croatia. Does he agree that this development holds out the real hope that the rest of the former Yugoslavia might be able to join the European Union, but that there must be two provisos in that regard? First, there must be a final solution concerning Serbia and Montenegro. Secondly, those involved in the most heinous war crimes during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia must be arrested and charged, to ensure that they end up in The Hague, which is where they belong.

Tony Blair: It is obviously important that there is co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. However, it is still a remarkable thought that the countries of the Balkans, which was a byword for instability and war for decade upon decade, are now plausible members of the European Union. That shows how much things have changed in that region, and if we continue with that change we will achieve even further steps towards re-integrating the Balkans with the rest of Europe. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend: it is important that Croatia abide by its co-operation with the tribunal, because other countries have to do the same.

Patsy Calton: Will the Prime Minister comment on the position of property in northern Cyprus seized from its owners during and after Turkey's invasion?

Tony Blair: This issue has been part of the negotiation and it has been tremendously sensitive on all sides. Frankly, it can be resolved only in the context of an agreement to a plan for the whole of Cyprus. People understand its importance, but it is probably better if I say no more about it.

Harry Barnes: On Iraq, the Prime Minister said that the European Council has confirmed its full backing for, and financing of, United Nations protection. Is not part of such action this Government's supplying of weapons to the fledgling Iraqi security forces, police and army? Words are not enough, and such action is surely necessary in order to contain terrorist forces in Iraq.

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we must ensure that we not only train the Iraqi forces but equip them properly, so that they can defend themselves against terrorists who are often very well financed and well armed.

John Gummer: Does the Prime Minister accept that even those of us who are not as enthusiastic as he is about Turkey's membership of the European Union will point out the attraction of the EU to the many countries that want to join it? Central to that attraction is democracy and the rule of law, so how can he go on talking as he does, given what is happening in Guantanamo bay and in Belmarsh? Is it not true that we need to put those things right before Turkey will listen to what we are asking it to do?

Tony Blair: We have made clear on a number of occasions the position concerning the British detainees in Guantanamo bay; Belmarsh, however, is a different situation. Those detained there are free to leave the country, and some actually have. The right hon. Gentleman faced this problem when he was in government; indeed, for a considerable time back then, the Labour party was probably on the other side of the argument in this House concerning prevention of terrorism legislation. We do not in any way dismiss the argument about the civil liberties of those detained in Belmarsh. However, given what we know these people are capable of, given that our security services tell us that there is a reasonable suspicion that they are plotting terrorist activity, given that we have gone through a judicial process—albeit one that is not in accordance with the normal procedures of law, but which was headed by a High Court judge—and given that these people are actually free to leave this country, I, as a decision taker, having taken account of the civil liberties argument, must in the end put the security of the British people first.
	Our security services indicated that if we let such people out, we could not guarantee that we could survey them adequately, or that we would not lose some of them. This issue is difficult and we must return to it repeatedly, argue about it in this House and in the media, and have a public debate on it. My belief, on balance, is that we have to maintain this position, but in pointing to my belief I do not dismiss the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I simply say, as he knows from when he was in government, that it is a heavy responsibility to allow out on our streets people whom we know or believe may want to cause death and destruction to our citizens.

Andrew Dismore: I very much welcome the decision on Turkey, but the fact remains that it is in military occupation of an EU state—northern Cyprus. The problem would not have been resolved by Annan 5, which would have allowed Turkish troops to remain in Cyprus in perpetuity. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether a new initiative on Cyprus could be launched before October, perhaps after the elections in northern Cyprus in February? On the matter of trade, perhaps we should think more about free trade in the round rather than direct trade with the rest of the EU. In particular, we should ask the Turkish Cypriots to lift their embargo on imports from the Republic of Cyprus into the north.

Tony Blair: I know that my hon. Friend has raised this issue a number of times and it is obviously of great importance to the Greek Cypriot side. I hope that it will be possible to get back to some sort of sustained negotiations. Cyprus is now in the EU, Turkey wants to join the EU and we have agreed to start accession negotiations, so it really does not make sense to carry on having this contention between the Turkish and Greek side of Cyprus. We have discussed the matter on many occasions with Kofi Annan and we will continue to look for a way to revive the process.

Andrew MacKay: In the context of strongly supporting what the Prime Minister said about Turkey's application being an historic moment, I put it to him that, after the sad failure of the Kofi Annan plan, which many people thought was the best way forward for Cyprus, the EU made a clear move to open up trade with northern Cyprus and to internationalise the airport. That has slowed down very badly indeed, so will the Prime Minister assure the House that he is using his full powers to speed it up? Otherwise, confidence in northern Cyprus and Turkey will be lost.

Tony Blair: I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. Yes, we certainly will use our best endeavours to make sure that the blockage is unblocked.

Chris Bryant: Some people argue that we should not sign up to the draft constitutional treaty because it would bring about a European foreign Minister and a shared foreign policy, which they believe would be counter to the interests of Britain. However, does not the experience of this year—whether we are talking about Iran, where the EU played a significant role in ensuring greater stability and safety for the region, or about the Ukraine, where Javier Solana played an important part in ensuring stability—show that a shared foreign policy is in Britain's best interests and that the sooner we sign up to the constitutional treaty the better it will be for us all?

Tony Blair: What the last two years show is the validity and importance of Europe working together—for example, in respect of Iran and, more recently, Ukraine. They also show clearly that when Britain decides as a sovereign country to go its own way and disagree with other European countries, as over Iraq, it can do so. Those years also show that there are other issues, such as the middle east peace process, in respect of which we are somewhere between the two. That demonstrates the importance and common sense of Europe co-operating where it can and wants to, and of this country being free to run its foreign and defence policy when it needs to. That is precisely the situation that will be maintained under the new European constitutional treaty.

Martin Smyth: I welcome the Prime Minister's clear thinking on the need for democratic countries to protect their own citizens, but does he agree that Turkey could advance its hopes for accession if it were prepared to acknowledge past failures in respect of the Armenian massacres?

Tony Blair: If I may, I will not get into that issue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that what Turkey has done over the past few years represents, on any basis, remarkable progress in human rights terms. Under the guidance, in a sense, and the pressure of EU negotiation, it will continue to do even more. It will do it as a sovereign country because it wants to. It is better to look to the future.

Nick Palmer: The Prime Minister's report from the European summit quite naturally focused on the accession of new countries, which directly affects the EU. Does he agree, however, that it is quite possible that when we hold the chair of the EU in the second half of next year the key issue will be giving the final push to a settlement for Israel, Palestine and the other countries involved in the long-running conflict there? Does he agree that it would be a crowning achievement for the EU if it helped facilitate a transformation of the situation for the years to come?

Tony Blair: I hope very much that Europe will play a constructive role in the middle east peace process. We would certainly like that to happen.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Prime Minister said that
	"we committed ourselves to helping to ensure that the re-run of the elections in Ukraine is free and fair".
	I am sure that we would all hope that that is the case. He also said that the Government would send a substantial number of observers. Does he think that a substantial number of observers should be sent to the Iraqi elections, and would they be safe?

Tony Blair: The issue of observers for the Iraqi elections has not been decided yet. Obviously, if at all possible, it would be right to send observers. The process is being conducted by the United Nations, and it is important that we try to do that. Obviously, there will be security issues, and we shall have to take account of them. But most people would like to see the elections in Iraq held as freely and fairly as is possible. If only the terrorists stopped, of course, that would happen.

Julian Brazier: After the European Council had finished examining the troublespots to the east, did it take a moment to look to the south, to Sudan and Zimbabwe, with both of which Britain has a long-standing connection? Both are countries where brutal Governments are currently engaged, through a series of semi-legal militias backed by the apparatus of the state, in massacring many of their own subjects in ethnic minorities and opposition political groupings.

Tony Blair: Yes, of course we considered the question of Sudan. We reiterated the very strong position in support of the African Union troops and the need for the Sudanese Government and those fighting on the other side to conclude an agreement by the end of the year. We have to keep up pressure to do that.
	On Zimbabwe, there are different positions in Europe, but the British Government's position remains the same. We do what we can to help people in Zimbabwe who have a difficult situation and for whom it is intensely difficult to function properly politically. We do what we can, but what more we can do is often difficult to foresee exactly.

Richard Allan: With the waves of accession that are now planned, the problematic countries of the former republic of Yugoslavia and Albania will find themselves surrounded by the EU but outside of it. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that their development remains high on the European Council agenda and that it will not lose priority because of everything else that is going on?

Tony Blair: Yes, I can give that assurance.

John Bercow: Given that trade-distorting subsidies to western agricultural production are both morally wrong and economically damaging, and that such destructive policies help, at least in part, to explain why, on present trends, the noble millennium development goals will be achieved only between 100 and 150 years beyond the due date of 2015, can the right hon. Gentleman indicate what faster timetable and greater specificity of policy in terms of trade justice he has in mind that can be progressed to give the poorest people in the world the chance to compete and grow?

Tony Blair: The only answer is to make sure that we give, in the World Trade Organisation round, a comprehensive EU offer that deals with access to markets and with the common agricultural policy. That is what we will be fighting to ensure in Europe. There has already been a significant movement, and there needs to be much more. That will then have to be joined by other countries; it is not just a European problem. The one thing of which I am absolutely sure is that one of the main claims that will be made by civic society, non-governmental organisations and the Commission for Africa will be that it is wrong to tell Africa that it should stand up for itself and stand on its own two feet while we keep its goods out of our markets. We need to open our markets, and that will be good for Africa and, ultimately I believe, good for us.

Point of Order

Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you have been following events in Birmingham, where Sikhs have been demonstrating against a play that they said was offensive to their religion. The demonstrations turned violent over the weekend and I understand that the production has now been pulled. This is an extremely serious matter, because the police should guarantee the security of theatre-goers and anyone else. The Sikh community has said that it cannot guarantee that there will be no more violence. Has the Home Secretary indicated whether he will make a statement or are we to have our theatres censored by the mob, who will decide what we watch and do not watch?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand the concern expressed by the hon. Lady, but it is not a matter for the Chair. I certainly have not been made aware that the Home Secretary intends to make any statement.

Sir Michael John Austin Cummins

Peter Hain: I beg to move,
	That this House expresses its gratitude to Sir Michael John Austin Cummins, on his retirement from the office of Serjeant at Arms, for his 23 years in the service of this House, including five years as Serjeant at Arms, which was preceded by 24 years of distinguished military service, and for his unfailing courtesy, good humour, and helpfulness to individual honourable Members; and extends to him its best wishes for his retirement.
	I believe that the whole House will wish to support this motion and join me in paying tribute to Sir Michael, who retires at the end of the year. Michael and his staff, including the doorkeepers, do an exceptional job. He is regarded highly, and with much affection, by Members and staff alike. I know that the whole House will also join me in paying tribute to his wife Catherine, who is seated under the Gallery and is doubtless checking that all our tributes in his honour are up to scratch.
	Sir Michael has served this House since 1981, following distinguished service in the Army. After graduating from Sandhurst, he served in the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, reaching the rank of lieutenant-colonel. He saw service overseas in Germany, Norway, Denmark, Aden and Kuwait and in operational tours in Northern Ireland.
	Sir Michael joined the House as a Deputy Assistant Serjeant at Arms and was promoted to Assistant Serjeant at Arms in 1982, later becoming Deputy Serjeant at Arms in 1995 and then Serjeant at Arms on 1 January 2000. He has overseen significant modernisation reform to the House, including the introduction of television coverage, the huge expansion of information technology and, following the Braithwaite review, a comprehensive programme of change, including the creation of a new senior management structure.
	Sir Michael also managed the completion of the building works to Portcullis House, the occupation plan for the building and the official opening by Her Majesty the Queen in February 2001. He oversaw the lying in state of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and the successful golden jubilee celebrations in 2002. He led the accommodation review that resulted in the House, for the first time, having a coherent forward accommodation strategy. He also formulated and put into practice a comprehensive contingency plan for the relocation of the House in an emergency.
	Sir Michael showed determination in the face of this year's serious security breaches and I know that he welcomes as much as I do the appointment of the new security co-ordinator. When, earlier this year, there was some disparaging comment in the media about the so-called "men in tights", none of it saw fit to mention the fact that Michael has seen front-line service in Northern Ireland in the notoriously dangerous border areas. In any case, I would be the first to acknowledge that nobody looks better in black stockings than he does—well, no men, anyway.
	Throughout his time here, Sir Michael has exercised his responsibilities with great courtesy, good humour and charm. He has always been approachable and unfailingly helpful to individual Members. The Serjeant's parties are reputed to be the best in the Palace of Westminster and, I am told, involve even more fancy dress than he has to wear in the course of his daily duties. We will indeed miss him.
	I believe that the whole House will join me in expressing our thanks to Sir Michael, and in wishing him, and his wife Catherine, a long and happy retirement—and knowing him, probably a busy one, too.

Oliver Heald: On behalf of the Opposition, I join the Leader of the House in his tribute to Sir Michael Cummins, the 37th Serjeant at Arms—a post first established in 1415. During his 23 years here, he has made a huge contribution to the work of the Serjeant at Arms Department, since 1995, as deputy Serjeant, and during the last four years as the Serjeant.
	As has been mentioned, Sir Michael oversaw the opening of Portcullis House, the new parliamentary building that has done a huge amount to improve the work of this place. He has also overseen the major development of information technology, which now has a department of its own.
	During this period, there has been a large increase in the number of people visiting Parliament and I know how pleased Sir Michael has been that so many have been able to enjoy that experience. Inevitably, he has overseen an extension of our security precautions, but has always borne in mind the wish of the House that this place be accessible to our constituents. He has shown great dignity in the face of some unfair criticism.
	In implementing all those changes, Sir Michael has shown great skill and been unfailingly courteous. From my time on the Administration Committee, I remember the helpful way in which he addressed the ideas of individual members, while always seeking to ensure that the most adventurous ideas were very fully scrutinised before being implemented. As a result, many of them did not see the light of day.
	Sir Michael was able to bring a wealth of knowledge to the discussion of all areas under his responsibility, including security, where he had detailed knowledge of the work of other Parliaments. I know that members of the House of Commons Commission found that particularly useful.
	Michael Cummins has served his country well as a soldier and in his work in the House. We wish him and his wife Catherine a long and happy retirement in Pimlico. I am sure that we all hope to see them visit this place regularly. Perhaps Sir Michael will find more time to enjoy his recreations of tapestry and equitation—although I suggest that he should not try them both at the same time.

Paul Tyler: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are delighted to associate ourselves with the tributes to Sir Michael.
	I want particularly to draw attention to the role that Sir Michael has played in modernising the House over the past five years. As the Leader of the House said, it has been a period of dramatic change—not least in terms of IT, which Sir Michael has had to steer through. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) has reminded me that that is by no means the sort of activity that one would normally associate with retired military personnel, or indeed with those whose main hobbies were equitation and tapestry. The process has been remarkably smooth compared with many other processes of a similar nature.
	The other thing I wanted to mention is that there has been—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much conversation in the Chamber.

Paul Tyler: As the Leader of the House has already said, the Serjeant has had to look after us in a period of particular difficulty in relation to the security of these buildings. There has been much unfair, ill-informed criticism of the Serjeant's team. This is an opportunity for us not only to thank him but to pay tribute to his staff who look after us so well. It is important to recognise that prevention is just as important as response and the Serjeant has done us proud in the way that he has led his team in that respect. They are unsung heroes and heroines and they deserve all the praise we can give them.
	The quality of Sir Michael's leadership is seen in the performance of his Department. We can be very proud of the way in which it works on our behalf. The Liberal Democrats, too, wish Sir Michael and Lady Cummins a long, happy and very rewarding retirement.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Members of Parliament are not easy people to organise. They all come here with a firm conviction not only that are they elected solely on the basis of their own brilliance, but that everything that they do should be given precedence over all the other 654 Members with whom they work. To seek to organise them at least in some comparatively sensible way, any servant of the House—the Serjeant at Arms is the most senior and most important servant of the House—must learn to deal not only with that vast number of bruised egos, but with the day-to-day complications presented by a building that, for centuries, has been the centrepiece of freedom in this country, where our people must have access, where the public must have the right to come and where hon. Members must congregate to express freely the views that they represent from their constituencies.
	Sir Michael Cummins has exercised that task with not just wit and sense, but enormous courtesy. Every hon. Member who has had to deal with him knows that he is very sensitive and has always been extremely anxious to maintain the reputation of Parliament and deal with the needs of individual Members, irrespective of whether they are Back-Bench or Front-Bench Members. In the past year, he and his staff have been subjected to gratuitous, unhelpful and astonishingly ignorant criticism, based on extraordinarily superficial things, such as the court dress that his office brings with it. If we ever lose touch with those traditions that have made this a great Parliament, we shall be the poorer for it. The fact that he has borne those criticisms stoically has given me to understand that possibly some of the assault courses that he had to negotiate in the Army must have given him excellent training for his job in the House of Commons.
	I hope that Sir Michael and Lady Cummins will look back on their time here perhaps with affection, somewhat tempered from time to time by reservations about some of the things that have happened. I hope, too, that they will go away not with regret, but with appreciation in their hearts from those of us who know that those who undertake that very difficult task frequently do so with little appreciation and with—on the part of many Members of Parliament, I hope—our prayers and certainly our affection.

David Trimble: It is a pleasure to associate myself and my colleagues, on whose behalf I speak, with the comments made and good wishes expressed to Sir Michael on his retirement. Just listening to the recital, particularly by the Leader of the House, of all the changes that have taken place over the past five years almost took me by surprise. I suppose that it is a tribute in a sense to the skill with which those changes have been manoeuvred into place that we now take so many of them for granted. The smoothness with which that has happened is in itself a significant achievement.
	Hon. Members have also referred to the security difficulties that have arisen in recent months and they have rightly noted the ill-informed comments that have been made and the ignorance about the House that they reflected. Obviously, there must be a response to the changed circumstances and to the threat, but I very much hope—I think that this is the view of my colleagues—that, in that response, we will bear in mind the traditions of the House, the need for openness and the need for what happens in the Palace to reflect the needs of Members both of this and the other place. We must not allow ourselves to reach a situation where excessive security in any way impinges on what hon. Members need and wish to do in representing their constituencies and trying to deal with the issues of the day. I hope that we never reach a situation where so-called security experts start to try to tell us how we should conduct ourselves in this place.

Alex Salmond: I happily associate my hon. Friends in the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru and myself with the sentiments in the motion, not just because Sir Michael had distinguished service in the Scots Guards—one of the few regiments unaffected by the Government's recent proposals—but because it notes his unfailing courtesy and good humour. To that, we should add—this has been reflected in the sentiments expressed—the efficiency with which he has carried forward his duties and those of his Department.
	The Leader of the House listed some of the responsibilities of the Serjeant at Arms in addition to order and security, which his Department has carried forward with great efficiency. I can report that the responsibilities on order are carried out with efficiency because some of my hon. Friends helpfully test them from time to time. I agree with the sentiments about security that have been expressed. Despite all the controversy about men in tights, I think that they look after the security of this place rather well and perhaps better than men without tights will in the future, although that remains to be seen.
	In the meantime, we all join in wishing Sir Michael and his family a long and happy retirement. He takes with him our grateful thanks for his distinguished service to all of us.

Patrick Cormack: On behalf of the three Back-Bench members of the House of Commons Commission, it is good to be able to join the unanimous tributes from all parties in the House. Without being a Member of the House, Sir Michael was a wonderful House of Commons man, and I shall remember him in that context. He loved this place as much as any of us could love it. He cared for it deeply, which is why it was sad that the ill-informed comments to which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) eloquently referred were made in recent months. I hope that Sir Michael's memories of this place will not be coloured or distorted by those ill-informed comments, which were motivated by prejudice and based on ignorance.
	Sir Michael has been an exemplary servant of the House. He is an honourable man in a long line of honourable Serjeants who have served us well. On behalf of the Back-Bench members of the Commission, who have good reason to know just what he has done for the House, I am glad to add my tributes and good wishes to Sir Michael and Lady Cummins for a long, happy and healthy retirement.

Patrick McLoughlin: I rise briefly on behalf of the Joint Committee on Security, the advisory Committee of both Houses that makes recommendations on security to the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor regarding the parliamentary estate. Sir Michael has, like his predecessors, been one of our principal advisers and has attended the Committee for almost 10 years, first as the deputy Serjeant and then as the Serjeant. The Committee is chaired by the Government deputy Chief Whip and its members include the hon. Members for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), for Stockport (Ms Coffey) and for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). Committee members expressed their gratitude to the Serjeant for his long and dedicated service at their last meeting.
	As hon. Members have said, over a difficult period during which Sir Michael has often been criticised unfairly, he has displayed a dignity and loyalty to Parliament that is much to be admired. He has been a superb Officer of the House, combining industry, integrity, a lightness of touch and a ready sense of humour. He will be greatly missed and we wish him well in his retirement.
	Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Identity Cards Bill

[Relevant documents: The Fourth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2003-04, on Identity Cards, HC 109, and the Government's reply thereto, Cm 6359.]
	Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The discussion is an important milestone in the lengthy dialogue that the country has had on identity cards. The debate is of long standing, but it has increased in intensity in the aftermath of the terrorist atrocities in the United States on 11 September 2001. However, the Bill needs to be considered on broader issues than matters of national security alone.
	In preparation for the legislation, we have had a six-month public consultation exercise, an inquiry by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and further consultation on a draft Bill. The Government listened carefully to the many comments that were received. Changes have been made both to the Bill that we are debating and the plans for delivering the scheme.
	I assure the House that the Government and I will continue to listen to and act on constructive comments and proposals as the Bill goes through its various stages, but I want to emphasise that, both in principle and in practice, the case for it is in my opinion very strong. Quite apart from the security advantages, there will be enormous practical benefits. ID cards will potentially make a difference to any area of everyday life in which one already has to prove one's identity. Examples are opening a bank account, going abroad on holiday, claiming a benefit, buying goods on credit and renting a video. The possession of a clear, unequivocal and unique form of identity, in the shape of a card linked to a database holding biometrics, will offer significant benefits of various types.
	Moreover, the help that the cards can offer in tackling fraud will save tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. Some £50 million a year is claimed illegally from the benefit systems alone through the use of false identities—money that could of course be far better spent on other public services.

Richard Allan: The Home Secretary says that £50 million has been claimed in benefits because of false identities. What would it cost the Department for Work and Pensions to implement an identity card checking system? I believe card readers will cost between £250 and £750 each.

Charles Clarke: I shall deal with the costs at the appropriate point in my speech, but I hope that it is clear to everyone that fraud in the benefits system and other public services is unacceptable and that we should do whatever we can to deal with it as effectively as possible.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Those who succeed in repeatedly creating fraudulent credit cards are clearly very efficient at it. Is my right hon. Friend absolutely certain that the first cards on the market will be the genuine ones, not those that are fraudulently produced?

Charles Clarke: I am. Perhaps I could confirm that by making another point. Credit card fraud has been a major issue. When I was first a Home Office Minister, I chaired a meeting of all the companies concerned and the various police agencies, which led to the PIN system that is now being introduced throughout the country. That had to be introduced because existing credit card security simply was not adequate and led to hundreds of millions of pounds worth of fraud. The biometric card that we propose is a further refinement that will enable things to be dealt with far more effectively.

Peter Lilley: May I help the Home Secretary answer the question of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan)? The DWP said that there would be 4,500 identity checkers, each costing a minimum of £250. That means that £1.1 billion would have to be spent to save between £20 million and £50 million a year. If there is depreciation over 10 years, it will cost £100 million a year to save between £20 and £50 million. Does the Home Secretary consider that a good deal?

Charles Clarke: I do not accept the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman or by Liberal Democrat Members. As I have said, I will come to the costs later.

Alex Salmond: The Home Secretary helpfully listed services for which he thought identity cards would be useful. The Scottish First Minister has said that identity cards will not be compulsory in Scotland for access to Executive services. Does that mean that they will be compulsory in Scotland, or not?

Charles Clarke: It means exactly what the First Minister said, which is that the system in Scotland will decide how the cards would be used for access to services there. That decision will be made by the Scottish Parliament and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary colleagues—if they are still working with him—will make their voices heard.

Mike Hancock: rose—

Charles Clarke: I shall make a bit more progress and then give way to another Liberal Democrat.
	The point that I want to emphasise in considering this question is that the drive towards secure identity is happening all over the world. For example, under current plans, from next autumn, British tourists who need a new passport will have to have a biometric one to visit the United States, or a biometric visa instead. We will rightly have to bear the costs of introducing the new technology to enhance our passports in any case, but I believe that we should take the opportunity of that investment to secure wider benefits, such as those that I have just set out.
	The security issues here are critical and they need to be faced up to by those who oppose the introduction of the scheme. A secure identity scheme will help to prevent terrorist activity, more than a third of which makes use of false identities. [Interruption.] A third of terrorist activities make use of false identities and we need an identification process to deal with that. It will make it far easier to address the vile traffickingin vulnerable human beings, which ends in appalling tragedies, and the exploitative near slave labour or forced prostitution that exists as a result of the traffic in people. It will reduce, as we have just discussed, identity fraud, which now costs the United Kingdom more than £1.3 billion every year.

David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that his predecessor, when giving evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, conceded that identity cards, including biometric ones, would not have prevented the kind of atrocities that we saw, tragically, in Istanbul and Madrid, and therefore there are high expectations, with regard to terrorism and many other factors, that in practice are not likely to be realised?

Charles Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), in his evidence to the Select Committee, simply emphasised the straightforward point that there is no panacea, no rabbit that can be pulled out of the hat, in the form of identity cards or anything else, that will solve all the issues of international terrorism. The issue is whether such measures will improve our capacity to deal with international terrorism. My right hon. Friend said that they will, and that is what I say.

Mike Hancock: Now that the Home Secretary has confirmed that everyone in the United Kingdom will have to have an identification card, when will he decide to make it compulsory to carry it, so that, if it is to be effective, it can be used and challenged on the day?

Charles Clarke: That proposal is specifically excluded by the legislation. I shall come to precisely that issue later. It is one of the myths about the proposal that the Liberals continue to perpetuate without any foundation at all.

Nick Palmer: Since I introduced this proposal as a private Member's Bill some years ago, I have had overwhelming support from my constituents and many others around the country. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Spanish police have said that identity cards have been helpful in investigating both the identity of the victims and the identity of the killers in the Madrid bombing?

Charles Clarke: I pay tribute to the pioneering nature of my hon. Friend's contribution to these discussions and confirm that security forces in countries throughout the world recognise that a system of identification of this kind will help them in the challenges that they face, which are very serious. The question that we have to face is whether we will help them to face those challenges. I acknowledge that there are difficult problems, but I make it clear that I am not arguing that ID cards will somehow solve the issues and prevent the tragedies that arise throughout the world, but I do argue that they will help to solve them, and that is why we should support them.

Francis Maude: It is easy to see how all the benefits that the Home Secretary refers to could flow from a fully compulsory identity card scheme where citizens are required to carry those cards at all times, although most of us, I suspect, would find that objectionable. It is very, very hard to see how anything more than tangential, minimal benefits flow from the kind of voluntary scheme that he is proposing, which many of us see as an expensive waste of time.

Charles Clarke: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I simply do not think that that assertion is correct. The police themselves are very clear that having a national identification base of the kind that is set up in the scheme will lead to serious policing advantages for them and that is the basis of the argument with which they are principally concerned. We are also clear, as we have already said, that we will not require people to carry cards in that way because we do not believe that it would have significant policing advantages of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman suggested.

Francis Maude: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way again.
	The suspicion that many of us have and the reason why we feel that the police are so enthusiastic about this is that it is an incremental process. First, there will be a voluntary scheme. Gradually, as the money will have been spent on it, it can then be argued that the only way of getting value for that money is by introducing compulsion, which will then mean carrying the card at all times. It is a salami-slicing process, which is why so many people are very suspicious about it.

Charles Clarke: I have no sympathy with the "thin end of the wedge" argument. People may have argued when national registration of births was introduced in 1837 that they would at some time arrive in a society in which everybody operated in a "1984" type of world. That is nonsense; it simply has no substance. The question of how the scheme develops will depend on what this Parliament does as we go through the process of saying how we should take it forward. I can raise any fears that one likes, but they will have foundation only if Parliament decides to surrender all responsibility with regard to how the matter develops. The Bill sets out a series of parliamentary systems of scrutiny and approval that must be gone through if the ID card system is to develop in any particular way.

Roger Gale: The Home Secretary is trying to have it both ways. On the radio at lunchtime, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said that this was a voluntary scheme, not a compulsory one. That is literally the case, although clauses 6 and 7 allow the Home Secretary to introduce a compulsory scheme. The Minister was than asked how the scheme would be of value to the police if it was not compulsory. Frankly, he did not have an answer. What he said was that there will be a biometric register. Will it include everyone? Otherwise, how will it help people like me, who go out on the streets as a policeman?

Charles Clarke: Let me be very clear. If there are hon. Members who are opposed in all circumstances to a compulsory system, they should vote against the Bill. The measure sets out clearly a process that could lead to a compulsory system at the end, but it does it by a process of voluntary change in taking the matter forward. That is the right process of reform; it is perfectly reasonable, and it is the way we should go. If the hon. Gentleman says that in no circumstances that he can ever foresee should there ever be a system of compulsion, he should certainly vote against the system.

Jeremy Corbyn: Since the Home Secretary and others have made a strong case that the introduction of identity cards will somehow or other protect us from terrorism, can he explain exactly how it will do so? Since there is a very narrow gap between official identity and the production of fraudulent identity, what evidence does he have that even biometric recognition itself will not be tampered with, making the card utterly useless after a very short period?

Charles Clarke: On the second point, I simply do not accept that view. We have had a series of increasingly sophisticated means of identifying and recognising people's individual characteristics. As all experts will acknowledge, having the biometric measure is superior to not having it. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) with regard to personal identification number schemes for credit cards, the numeric system is superior to what existed before, but it is not as good as a biometric system. The question that we face is: do we follow the process of trying to get superior systems and carry the matter forward on that basis?
	On the point about terrorism, I hope that there will be no dispute about the fact that there are people who try to mislead about their identity and history as they conduct their terrorist activity in their terrorist organisation. A system that identifies people more effectively will be more successful at tackling terrorism.

Patrick Cormack: As there is such widespread concern about this issue even among those like me, who, broadly speaking, support the right hon. Gentleman, does he not concede that it is important that we try to command as much support as possible both within the House and outside and that the Bill is as carefully drawn as possible and scrutinised in as detailed a manner as possible? Will he therefore accept the proposition on the Order Paper that it should go to a Joint Committee of both Houses?

Charles Clarke: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said except the last clause. There should be proper scrutiny; Parliament has developed very effective methods of scrutiny of these questions, and it will exercise them. That is the way for us to proceed.

Richard Shepherd: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: Not at the moment.
	I repeat what I said earlier: we have already considered a draft Bill and had a public consultation exercise, and the Home Affairs Committee has already looked at the matter. The policy comes not out of the blue sky, but after a lengthy public consultation.

Jean Corston: Today's front-page report in The Guardian that the Government have withheld information from the Joint Committee on Human Rights is entirely false. The Committee will examine the Bill as part of its normal scrutiny process. We will write to the Government on any issues of concern that arise on human rights. If the past is anything to go by, we will have an amicable and proper exchange—all such exchanges are, of course, published.
	Two years ago, I conducted a consultation with 100 organisations in my constituency on the Government's consultation on identity cards. [Interruption.] The overwhelming majority of respondents were in favour. [Interruption.] One of the organisations representing ethnic minority women was particularly—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Jean Corston: One of the organisations representing ethnic minority women was particularly in favour. [Interruption.] It said that ethnic minority women do not have access to their passports, do not hold bank or building society accounts and need identity cards.

Charles Clarke: I accept the second part of my right hon. Friend's remarks. Identity cards have popular support, but it is important to emphasise that the Government's case does not rest on the fact that the legislation has popular support, because the legislation is merited in its own terms.
	I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's remarks about the report in The Guardian. I assure her Select Committee that the Government will fully co-operate as the Committee seeks to inquire further.
	It is frustrating that so much of the identity cards debate centres around matters that the Government are not proposing and, in some cases, have never proposed, and I should like to address some of those myths. In my opinion, it is entirely false to claim that ID cards will erode our civil liberties, re-visit "1984", usher in the Big Brother society or establish some kind of totalitarian police state.

William Cash: rose—

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is brandishing a book by George Orwell. I shall give way to allow him to explain exactly where the issue is resolved in George Orwell.

William Cash: The Secretary of State claims that the matter has nothing to do with "1984". In that case, will he repudiate the statement by the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, that the proposals will amount to a "sea change" in the relationship between the individual and the state?

Charles Clarke: I will repudiate the Information Commissioner's remarks. I do not accept that identity cards will change the relationship between the citizen and the state as fundamentally as the Information Commissioner suggests. The relationship between the citizen and the state was not transformed in 1837 when people in England and Wales were required to register the birth of a child, which is the example that I gave earlier, or on any of the many other occasions since then when means of identification have been introduced by statute. There are issues about the relationship between the individual and the state, but, in my opinion, they are not about this Bill and ID cards.
	We are clearly moving towards a compulsory ID card scheme, because we believe that the state has a duty to protect its citizens from the misuse of their identities and to give them a means to interact simply and securely with public services. However, we are not looking to create a new culture of identification in which people are asked to confirm their identity more frequently than they are now. I must also make it clear that we have never proposed and do not propose a scheme under which it would be compulsory to carry a card. That was ruled out in the 2002 consultation paper and again in the draft Bill, and clause 15(3) of this Bill still rules it out.

Jim Sheridan: The Secretary of State has already mentioned the effect that ID cards will have on vulnerable workers, indigenous or otherwise, in this country. His predecessor offered great support to the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which registers and licenses employers. If it is right to register and identify employers, why is it wrong to register and identify employees?

Charles Clarke: I strongly agree. One of the most important humanitarian motives for supporting the Bill should be that it is one of the most effective means of attacking the people trafficking that leads to near-slave labour in many parts of this country. ID cards will help us to do that, and those who oppose the Bill need to face up to that fact.

David Taylor: The Secretary of State is attempting to reassure the House that this will not alter the fundamental relationship between citizens and the state, but how about those of our fellow citizens who suffer from mental ill health or lack of mental capacity? As the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has pointed out, those people are especially dependent on benefits. Cards could be used as a passport for access to benefits, and they might find themselves effectively locked out of an increasingly authoritarian and administratively complex system and be deterred from claiming that on which they depend for a reasonable life.

Charles Clarke: All I can say is that I understand the abuse to which my hon. Friend refers, and it is true that the issue needs to be addressed. In fact, ID cards enable us to attack that problem better and more effectively than the means of identification that exist at the moment. Whether people have mental health problems or whatever, a simpler, clearer system of identification for dealing with such issues will be more effective for those individuals, let alone for society as a whole.

Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State deal with an apparent failure of logic in his case? We are opposed to ID cards; he is in favour. If a police officer tracks down a criminal, terrorist, hijacker or trafficker and they do not have a card with them, how does the fact that they have to possess a card but can produce it a week or two weeks later aid the police officer in identifying the person in front of him? It is just not logical.

Charles Clarke: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to serve on the Committee that considers the Bill in order to raise those questions. I stress to him that it is the clear opinion of the police and all the other security services that the passage of the Bill will make the identification of people easier from that point of view.

David Trimble: The right hon. Gentleman clearly hopes that the identity card system will be comprehensive in covering every citizen in the United Kingdom. However, has he given any thought to the fact that we are part of a common travel area that involves the whole of the British isles, and that consequently his identity card system will not be effective unless some arrangement is made for it to cover the whole of the common travel area?

Charles Clarke: We have certainly taken that into account, and the fact that we are part of a common travel area is fully addressed.
	Perhaps I could deal with the question of devolution at this point. We will have a common identity card on a UK-wide basis and cards will be issued UK-wide. Provisions requiring people to register for cards will apply UK-wide. Any requirement to use cards under clauses 15 to 17 for services that are the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament will be a matter for this Parliament. However, where services are devolved, it will be a matter for the relevant devolved authority. Transport security is a matter that operates in the European area.

Nick Gibb: The answer that the Home Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—that the police say that it is a good idea—is simply unacceptable in this House. If a police officer approaches someone he suspects of illegal activity and that person refuses to produce an identity card or does not have one, how will this system help the police officer in those circumstances; or will the refusal to produce an ID card simply become an excuse and a reason for arrest?

Charles Clarke: Let me be absolutely clear. The powers of the police in the cases that are being described will be the same after the passage of the Bill as they were before it. That is because the Bill is not about extending police powers in relation to the individual in the way that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey fears and about which he asks questions. The establishment of a national identification register will enable the police to carry out their current duties more effectively. That is a powerful case for doing it.

Alex Salmond: The Home Secretary mistook my point. I was trying to show the emptiness of the suggestion by the First Minister of Scotland that somehow ID cards would not be compulsory because they were not being applied to Executive or devolved services. Does the Home Secretary, who is a much more sensible person, agree that, if a card is necessary, for example, to access one's pension, it means it is compulsory, even if it is not necessary for going to the doctor?

Charles Clarke: I am sorry if I have not been clear to the hon. Gentleman. The whole point is that, ultimately, the scheme will be effectively compulsory. However, for services that are devolved to the Administration in Scotland or wherever, the decisions will for the devolved institutions. He mentioned pensions, which is not a devolved matter and therefore one for the UK Parliament. Let me be clear: services that are devolved will be, as they are now, matters for the devolved Administrations.

Chris Bryant: One of the arguments—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The level of noise in the Chamber is rising all the time.

Chris Bryant: Many people in the emergency services, not only the police, argue for ID cards because they would make it much easier to identify people who had been in road traffic accidents. They also say that it would be useful if the ID card could include, on a voluntary basis, some medical record, of, for example, blood type. Is my right hon. Friend still open to that voluntary option?

Charles Clarke: The Bill makes it clear that medical records are not included. There may be arguments in favour such as those that my hon. Friend makes, but we will not include such a provision in the Bill because we believe that its purpose is precisely as indicated previously.
	The Bill has no power to require the production of an identity card to the police. The scheme will allow the police to check the fingerprints of those whom they are already entitled to fingerprint, such as those under arrest, against the records that are held on the national identity register. We all carry our biometric information with us and there is therefore no need for people to have a card in their possession for the police to make that check.
	The Bill sets limits on the information that can be held on the register. Unless the information fulfils the requirements of clause 1(5) and schedule 1, it cannot be held on the register and no criminal convictions, medical records or bank details would be on the database. We will not allow other organisations to have access to the database. We may choose, with Parliament's agreement, to provide specific information on request and subject to proper authorisation, but that is different from what our critics allege.

Kate Hoey: It is clear from what the Home Secretary says that, for everything to work, the technology will have to be superb. Is he confident that we can deliver that? Will he give an assurance that Capita, which destroyed lives in my constituency when it tried to operate the housing benefit system, will not be allowed anywhere near the system that we are discussing, should the Bill, which I oppose, be passed?

Charles Clarke: There is a Luddite tendency in the House that opposes technology and information and communications technology on the basis that a variety of mistakes has been made in the past. That is a legitimate position but I do not support it. The use of technology can be a major asset in terms of many aspects of my current responsibilities. If I am asked whether we should be more effective in our management, the way in which we carry through the provisions, the conduct of our tender processes and so on, I reply that we can and should be. However, if I am asked to exclude any possibility of using modern technology to advance our ability to deal with such matters, I shall not. I shall not exclude any bidder from any process. The requirement is to have a proper process that is properly tendered and carried through.

Win Griffiths: Given that schedule 1 provides for the possibility of holding 27 or more pieces of information about an individual on the register, what guarantees can my right hon. Friend give that the system will be hacker-proof?

Charles Clarke: Again, the position is as I have just stated. I think we are in a position to say that we can create a secure system. If we could not do so in the way that has been suggested, I would agree that the Government were behaving wrongly in coming forward with that proposal. I do not deny the point made by my hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—issues arise in relation to these questions and they need to be properly dealt with—but I am not prepared to take the view that we should simply stop any progress in those areas because of those issues.

Martin Linton: Is not the point about the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that an identity card will not help the police to decide whether to arrest somebody, but once somebody is arrested it will be possible quickly to establish beyond doubt that person's identity because of the biometric information the police will have from the fingerprint? That will also act as a deterrent, as people will know that the police have access to an instant means of verifying their identity.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and that is why I gave the example of using fingerprints in this context—a power that already rightly exists for the purposes of law enforcement.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Charles Clarke: I shall give way once more and then make a little progress.

Mark Oaten: Will the Home Secretary give the House a guarantee that individuals will have access to and be able to see what is held about them on the database?

Charles Clarke: There is a specific provision to deal with precisely that point.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Home Secretary help me on one point? Clause 1(6)(c) provides that the individual is apparently required, if he has died, to state the date of his death.

Charles Clarke: Under the Government's proposals, people will be able to live on after the point of death and do just that in every respect.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Charles Clarke: I shall give way once more; I have given way on more occasions than I intended.

Simon Thomas: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. As I understand it, the main point of his argument today is that this measure does not represent a significant erosion of civil liberties in this country. He knows that many Members, on both sides of the House, disagree fundamentally with him. Will he at least address the fact that all 11 western European countries with compulsory ID card systems, which he has admitted that this proposal is, have a written constitution and a Bill of Rights? In the context of the development of the constitution in this country—checks and balances that are not written down, but enshrined in case law—what comfort can he offer to people who believe that this measure represents a significant shift away from the rights of the individual in favour of those of the state?

Charles Clarke: The comfort I can offer is to study carefully the content of the Bill. Going through it as I have sought to do in my general introduction thus far, the fact is that we are not extending the rights of the state vis-à-vis the individual through these measures. We are producing a significant change, which will allow a state of affairs whereby people's identity can be more clearly known. The effect of that approach will be to improve services, improve security and improve the public conduct of life in a variety of different ways. I argue that this Bill is an enhancement, not an inhibition, of civil liberties.
	If the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) wants to invite me to go down the path of a written constitution, I will not follow him. I do not think that that is the right way to proceed. On the other aspects, I believe that we are in the right place.
	I want to conclude by going through the central clauses very rapidly. First, on the national identity register and its statutory purposes, the key is set out in clauses 1 to 3 and schedule 1. It is the secure record of identity that is important, not the card itself. That is a vital aspect to understand in the overall proposals. The statutory purposes cited in clause 1(3) show that ID cards are, first, to provide people with a convenient method of proving their own identify and, secondly, to help to verify people's identity when that is in the wider public interest. National security will be improved, illegal working attacked more effectively, immigration controls enforced more directly, and crime prevented and detected more effectively. It is also important that the register is accurate and remains so. Those points have been raised in the debate and clause 11 requires that to be the case.

Gordon Prentice: I support the Bill—my right hon. Friend will want to know that—but under clause 5 it will fall to an individual to give details of his or her address, previous addresses, time spent at previous addresses, tenancies and so on. What sanction will be applied to an individual who does not inform the national register of all those changes? The Law Society reminds us that about 40 per cent. of the population in London change address every year.

Charles Clarke: We have made it clear in the Bill that civil sanctions, not criminal sanctions, are the way to operate, and that is what would apply in those circumstances.

John Denham: On that same point, will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee that if addresses are to be included, there should be a responsibility on landlords, as well as individuals, to contribute to the registration of addresses? That is standard practice in Germany, it is one of the things that makes the German system work efficiently, and it does not cause difficulties.

Charles Clarke: I reassure my right hon. Friend that we will consider that. The system that we have at the moment, and that we are suggesting in terms of addresses, is similar to the system that currently operates for driving licences, and enables—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The problem is that, again, there is far too much loud conversation taking place in the Chamber.

Charles Clarke: Then let me speak directly to Conservative Members, Madam Deputy Speaker, to conclude what I have to say.
	The Bill is important for the future economy and security of our society. It is important to get it right. I am delighted that the shadow Home Secretary and the leader of the Conservative party have decided to support it, which is the right thing to do. I say to every Conservative Member, as I do to Liberal Democrat Members, that they, like all of us, must face up to our responsibilities in the modern world to take forward the system in the right way.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Charles Clarke: We can turn our backs and say that we take no account of these areas—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the House please come to order?

Charles Clarke: I will not give way, even to my very good hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). I have discussed with him outside the House how we will conduct our relationship in the future as we have done in the past.
	This legislation is a critically important development for the security of this country. I hope that every Member of the House will examine carefully their motivations and approaches to this issue. I repeat what I said earlier: as the Bill goes through its parliamentary stages, we will consider every constructive suggestion, such as those from the Select Committee, in the most positive way, to see how we can improve the quality of this legislation. What I will not do is accept that the principle is wrong. The principle is right. I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

David Davis: May I start by reiterating my welcome to the new Home Secretary? He will perhaps be pleased to hear that not all our debates are quite this exciting.
	The Home Secretary inherits a difficult job: one that always requires a keen sense of the balance between the interests of the citizen and the role of the state. It is the first duty of the state to protect the lives of citizens, but the duty to protect life must be balanced by the duty to protect our way of life. Nowhere is that more evident than in the debate about identity cards that we have just heard.
	As I said in the debate on the Queen's Speech, I would not have countenanced ID cards before 11 September. After that, however, I accept that we must consider them. After 11 September, it is incumbent on all of us to examine carefully any measures that might enhance the nation's security. Identity cards introduced properly and effectively may help to do that.
	None the less, it is worth remembering that the Bill will not see ID cards introduced to Britain tomorrow. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has acknowledged that the process is going to take "many, many years". This legislation merely establishes the framework necessary for their introduction. It is vital for us to consider that framework carefully and to get that consideration right.

Alex Salmond: rose—

William Cash: rose—

David Davis: I will give way to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

Alex Salmond: A wise choice. What the right hon. Gentleman has said so far about considering ID cards sounds more like an argument for an abstention than an argument for backing them. Can he tell us about the shadow Cabinet battle, and the suggestion in scurrilous elements of the press such as The Daily Telegraph that it was decided by not wanting to be outflanked by the Prime Minister on the security agenda, as opposed to being decided on a matter of principle or concerns about the prohibitive cost? Can he deny that report?

David Davis: Very easily. If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would not listen to the scurrilous press. As usual, he is getting ahead of himself, which is not unusual for a Scot Nat—even if he is still here, whereas the rest of his party has gone elsewhere.

Simon Hughes: rose—

David Davis: I shall give way again in a moment. I was just about to reach the point that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked about. This is why the official Opposition will vote for Second Reading—to allow full scrutiny to take place; it is also why we have tabled an amendment to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses. That would enable proper non-partisan examination to take place, and give the Bill the breadth and quality of scrutiny that it deserves.
	The Bill is therefore a necessary first stage in the process of a fuller and more open debate.

John Gummer: rose—

William Cash: rose—

Simon Hughes: rose—

David Davis: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes).

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Again I ask the House to come to order.

Simon Hughes: If, at the end of whatever Committee process we have, the Government use their majority on Report to ensure that the Bill remains unchanged, how will the Tory party vote on Third Reading?

David Davis: We shall make a judgment, and if the Bill has not changed at all, that judgment will be pretty sceptical. We shall make a judgment on the five tests that I shall explain in a minute—[Interruption.] All of them, not just one of them. That is critical to the judgment of the whole position.

John Gummer: rose—

William Cash: rose—

David Davis: I do not know whom to give way to first. I think I shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).

John Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem for those of us who do not oppose identity cards is that the Government are no longer trusted with anything so serious, so we need some system to ensure that so large a change is not in the hands of a Government who have not shown themselves to be worthy? Is not the Joint Committee a crucial step in making this a wholly parliamentary decision, not a Government one?

David Davis: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, to which I shall return when I talk about privacy and civil liberties. I do not agree with the Home Secretary that this is not a matter of civil liberties. There is an important balance here that we have to strike.
	There are several other reasons why the Bill deserves detailed consideration.

Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend will know that I am grateful that there is a motion on the Order Paper to send the Bill to a Joint Committee, but what shall we do if the Government refuse to heed that good advice, and then move the ridiculous programme motion that obliges us deal with the Bill under a guillotine before the end of January, although we do not come back from the recess until 10 January? That places many of us who are not doctrinally opposed to the Bill in a difficult position. I am speaking not only to my right hon. Friend but, through him, to the Home Secretary, whom I am asking to think again about the appalling answer that he so dismissively gave me when he said that he would not consider a Joint Committee.

David Davis: I take my hon. Friend's point, and I shall also make my own observation to the Home Secretary, who said—properly, in my view—that he was willing to take on board all the advice available from all parts of the House. I therefore hope that he will allow enough time for that to happen. One way of doing so—indeed, a very good mechanism for doing so—would be the Joint Committee.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

David Davis: No, no. If I may make some progress—

John Bercow: rose—

Alex Salmond: rose—

David Davis: As ever, the Scot Nat wants more than his share. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

John Bercow: Given the real danger of function creep—a danger underlined by the fact that no fewer than 25 of the 45 clauses in the Bill provide the Government with order-making powers to extend its provisions—does my right hon. Friend not share my deep disappointment that clause 25, relating to the appointment of the national identity scheme commissioner, makes it clear that the report that the commissioner submits can, and probably will, be doctored by the Secretary of State before being presented to Parliament? Does that not underline our anxiety that the commissioner will prove to be but a craven lickspittle of the Government?

David Davis: My hon. Friend offers me an attractive option, because I have a prejudice in favour of the commissioner reporting to the House rather than to the Government, just as the Comptroller and Auditor General and the ombudsman do. That would be a better arrangement, because it would give us more control over something that will affect civil liberties. Something else that my hon. Friend reminds me of is the fact that he is now raising a matter that is addressed about four fifths of the way through my speech, so I must make some progress before I take any more interventions.
	There are several other reasons why the Bill deserves detailed consideration. The use of biometric technology is set to become widespread over the next few years. It is worth considering putting it to use within a statutory framework—something that the Bill allows us to do. Similarly, in recent years it has become both legally and technically possible to pass large quantities of data about British citizens around government—indeed, for any arm of government to know more about any individual than at any time in history. That is already the case. Those data, plus the national identity register, are of more importance for privacy than the card itself, which is almost irrelevant in that respect. An important part of the Bill must be to put statutory control on the use and deployment of existing data.

John Robertson: Would the right hon. Gentleman bring in some kind of legislation to stop the use of supermarket loyalty cards, which can tell people what food we buy, when we buy it and when we eat it?

David Davis: Such cards are entirely voluntary, and people can decide how much information to provide, which is not the case with the state. As I shall say later in my speech, the use or misuse that the state can make of such data is much more serious than what any commercial concern can do with it.
	Identity cards already exist in practice, as passports and driving licences, and already, for asylum seekers, as application registration cards. It is worth considering the introduction of the framework that encompasses them all. We must ask ourselves whether ID cards are a necessary fact of life in the post-9/11 world. We must accept that the modern world, with its increasing use of new and emerging technologies, requires new safeguards and frameworks to govern how information is used, particularly by the state.

Martin Linton: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that many asylum seekers—certainly those I speak to—find application registration cards a great boon, and a quick and painless way of establishing their identity and their entitlement to benefits? The people who receive such cards largely welcome them, because in the past they had to use a tatty old Home Office form, which could not be used for two purposes at the same time. It was a great advantage to them when the new cards were introduced.

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman may be right, but that highlights a point that I shall come to in a moment—the importance of being very clear about what the cards are for. An entitlement card is different from other sorts of card.

Richard Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Davis: All right, but this must be the last intervention for a while.

Richard Shepherd: My right hon. Friend, like many others, has used the phrase "post-9/11". 9/11 was a profound and direct assault on the United States, yet although it has the same common law traditions as we do, that country has no intention of introducing identity cards. Does that not affect my right hon. Friend's judgment in such matters?

David Davis: Yes, it does, but the use of driving licences as straightforward identification in the United States is common. The vast majority of Americans carry driving licences—photo ID—so there is a distinction. We start from different positions. [Hon. Members: "We've got driving licences."] We do not have photo ID yet. We have to consider this matter from where Britain is, and we shall consider it very critically throughout the passage of the Bill, as hon. Members will gather in a minute.

Kate Hoey: Will the Minister give way?

David Davis: I am not the Minister—but I will give way.

Kate Hoey: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. We are talking about the United Kingdom, and many of us who are citizens of it who come from Northern Ireland have had photographic driving licences for many years.

David Davis: The hon. Lady is of course exactly right—I shall return later to the question of the purpose for which such identification was required—but the simple truth is that such licences are not universal. What we are arguing about today is whether we should adopt such a system for the entire United Kingdom.
	Incidentally, the Home Secretary did not deal properly with the issue of the common travel area, which is a critical weakness of the proposal. Unless Eire adopts a system of its own that is compatible with ours, we will have a weakness in that regard.

Des Browne: rose—

David Davis: I will give way to the Minister if he has some information for us.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that only last week, the European Union agreed to introduce biometric travel documents throughout the EU. Over time, that will address—as, of course, will this system—the very point that was so appropriately raised by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

David Davis: I thank the Minister for giving us that information.
	The Home Secretary rightly made much of the views of people such as the police, who tell us that ID cards will help them to wage a war on crime; indeed, the security services also tell us that they are a useful weapon against terrorism. So when the Minister winds up, will he tell us whether the security services or the police have made a formal request that ID cards be implemented? This is an important issue and if they did make such a request, we need to take it very seriously.

Nick Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: Not at the moment; I must make some progress.
	Against that, we must address—

Des Browne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: Of course.

Des Browne: I am very grateful. Both the security services and the police have said that the single most important thing that we could do to interdict terrorism is to introduce a secure form of identity into the United Kingdom. I know that the Leader of the Opposition was very impressed by that advice, as was I. I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman means by a "formal request", and if I am to answer him in the wind-up, perhaps he ought to explain. Once the police and the security services tell us their views on this issue, they do not need further to inform us formally.

David Davis: A "formal" request is just that. Did the police and the security services write to the Minister or the Home Secretary asking them to introduce ID cards? If not, different issues arise, which I might discuss later.
	I turn to our five tests, the first of which is clarity of purpose. One of the main objections to the 1940s wartime identity card was mission creep: at the outset, the card had three distinct purposes; it ended with 39. In the debate leading up to the Bill and in the response to the consultation process, the Government claimed that a national identity card is needed to allow access to benefits and services; to provide proof of age; for voter registration, crime reduction and immigration purposes; to tackle terrorism, money laundering, people trafficking and identity fraud; and to provide access to private services. It is important to know which of these is the priority, since different services and purposes demand different types of card. Entitlement cards, for example, do not have to be universal—as was pointed out earlier—nor do they have to be carried.
	On the other hand, it is difficult to see how a card that does not have to be carried will be effective against terrorism or illegal immigration. Are we to ask Mr. bin Laden to turn up at his local police station within three days to show his card? Obviously not. So the Government must make clear the specific purposes for which an ID card is required, and in particular, which of those purposes are the priorities. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to assess them. Where no individual purpose is specified, it must be made clear that an ID card is not a requirement.
	Secondly, as some Labour Members have pointed out, we must be clear about the technology's capabilities. Biometrics technology is not infallible. Fingerprints and iris scans cannot always easily be taken, and the technology can be fooled. The system must be robust from start to finish—from the card and biometric reader, through the communication system, and into the central computer, database and software. It must be impossible for a virus to enter the system. It is easy to conceive a virus that causes the database to give the wrong responses when a particular biometric—such as a fingerprint—is entered, or that conceals the existence of duplicate identities, thus corrupting the system's two key purposes. It is vital to this project's progress that the public and the authorities be clear about the technology's weaknesses, as well as its strengths.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Perhaps I might make to the right hon. Gentleman the point that I would have made to the Home Secretary, had I been given the opportunity. Will the excellence of biometric testing not create precisely the trap—I know that many police officers feel this way—that we are seeking to avoid? All existing identification methods are imperfect; indeed, most ID card systems in most countries are acknowledged to be imperfect and are created to be so. If a card is forged, biometric technology will provide what appears to be incontrovertible proof of identity, thus giving criminals and terrorists the access that they would otherwise not have.

David Davis: That is a powerful point, and it is one reason why the technology has to be very effective. One problem is that the presumption so far has been that the technology is perfect. It is not, so we need to build in fail-safes, as is done with other such technologies. As I said, the system must work throughout—from the reader through to the software. No one writing about this issue outside the technical journals has so far addressed the question of what will happen if somebody who is serious about defeating the system, which will have tens of thousands of access points, makes a virus attack on it. We have to make the system foolproof.

Bill Tynan: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that biometrics is the best and securest technology available, or is he aware of another technology that would deal with the problems that he describes?

David Davis: Frankly, I expect the Government, rather than this House, to check their technical information. Biometrics encompasses a whole range of technologies, such as fingerprint technology and iris reading, both of which can be fooled. It could also encompass DNA technology—that is too slow, however—and facial recognition. I suspect that the Government will have to run at least two completely different systems in order to reduce the odds of being defeated. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, his question is one for the Minister to answer, not me.

Mark Oaten: The issue is not just the effectiveness of biometrics, but the root or "seed" documents by which people obtain such information. If a terrorist were to bring in a false birth certificate, it could easily be accepted; as a result, they would have an identity linked to that document. How do we overcome that problem?

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman is right, in that that is one of the weaknesses with which the Government must deal; however, it is not an insuperable problem. The primary difficulty is with some European ID cards, rather than British ones. Indeed, in a letter to the previous Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary pointed out that some ID systems are more easily fooled than others. We will simply have to ensure that our standards are high, but that is not the greatest problem. The difficulty is that certain foreign cards could stand in for British ones.

Des Browne: Part of the problem is that a significant number of the Members who have contributed to this Second Reading debate clearly have not read the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will doubtless be able to point out to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) that clause 11 deals with the very point that he raises. The hon. Gentleman is running yet another red herring by saying that people can come into this country with false identities. The Bill allows for the verification of information on such people against other databases—secure ones—before they can get on to the register.

David Davis: I will allow the Minister to intervene on me again—if he wants to tell me that the three-month period allowed for European citizens who come here has now been rescinded.

Des Browne: The right hon. Gentleman is extremely generous in allowing interventions. Given the number of Members who want to speak in this debate, I suspect that I will not get a significant amount of time in which to wind it up. As he well knows, the Government signed up to the principle that we cannot require from EU citizens such registration until they have been in the country for more than three months. So the overall legal framework within which we operate requires us to observe that three-month window. If it did not, we would not have been prepared to go down this route, for obvious reasons. That is why we argue in Europe for biometric ID cards, which is what these people used to travel into the country. Biometrics in respect of people outwith the European free travel area are going to become almost compulsory for travel around the world.

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me. As the Liberal spokesman said, one of the main problems is access to the system. If such access is easier in other European countries than it is here, and people can come here for three months, that will have to be dealt with. Simple agreement on Europe-wide biometricsis not enough; there will have to be agreement on standards of access, which must be sorted out.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Davis: I want to make some progress.

William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Davis: In a moment. I promise that I will give way to my hon. Friend next time.
	The debate that we have just had rather highlights my next point, because the question is whether the Government have in place the organisation necessary to introduce the scheme. We know that what they are proposing is one of the most ambitious technology projects that the country has ever seen. We also know that the Government have an abysmal record—I am not making a political point, because most Governments have an abysmal record—in overseeing large-scale projects, as with the millennium dome and new software for the Child Support Agency and for passports.
	Only a couple of weeks ago, the national fingerprint identification system collapsed for five days—and that had the complexity of a pocket calculator by comparison with the national identity register. We have to address the issue of how to deal with the matter. I suspect that the Government will put it out to tender and we are going to have to think very hard about that process. I do not see the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in his place, but I hope that he contributes to the debate because I would be interested to hear what he has to say. I promised to give way to my hon. Friend.

William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that Australia had an opportunity to adopt identity cards—initially with considerable enthusiasm? Yet when the facts were known to the people of Australia, there was massive opposition to it and the whole proposal was dropped. Does he not think that, given the interaction of the proposals with the criminal law and the social security system within the EU, there is a real likelihood that the whole process will, through the legal framework of the justice and home affairs system, lead to a Europe-wide identity system enforceable through those laws by the European Court of Justice? Does he not regard that as an extremely dangerous prospect for 450 million people, quite apart from people in this country?

David Davis: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. On Australia, it took place some time ago in the 1980s and the backdrop was a little different. As to the EU, I do not know the answer to his question, but it is precisely the complex interaction between the legal and technical problems that makes me think that this is a perfect project for examination by a Joint Committee, not just by the House of Commons on a limited programme.

Andrew MacKinlay: The shadow Home Secretary and the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration dismiss too readily the problems mentioned by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). The common travel area with the Irish Republic is quite different from our relationship with France, Germany and other countries. A person in County Louth can travel each day to Belfast and someone from Donegal can travel to Derry, but they are required under the Bill to have a pass or passport. They may not have an Irish Republic passport, but they can still travel. What is going to be done to deal with that problem, given that it is an open border that must, for a variety of sensible logistical reasons, remain so?

David Davis: All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman should have addressed that question to the Home Secretary rather than to me. [Interruption.] I do not recall accepting excuses. I have said throughout that we must have proper tests and that problems must be dealt with. It may be possible to deal with that problem: we may need a new arrangement for the common travel area, though it would be a large change to carry through.
	My fourth test is the cost-effectiveness of the scheme. The introduction of the Bill saw the cost of the ID card scheme almost double overnight, from £3 billion to £5.5 billion. Given the time scale and the cost, the Government should not lose sight of the cheaper and quicker methods that could be put in place now to deal with some of the problems that ID cards seek to combat—having proper embarkation controls at British ports, for example, which is something that the next Conservative Government will put into effect as soon as possible. An end to fraudulent visa claims and taking action to control immigration are other examples. All those would address some of the problems that the Government propose to tackle with identity cards, and all of them are part of the next Conservative Government's manifesto commitments. They are the sort of cost-effective actions that the British people want to see happen here and now.

Julian Brazier: My right hon. Friend is generous in giving way and he is making a powerful and cogent speech—[Interruption.] Does he agree that the welcome measures in our manifesto—on keeping embarkation records and proper entry and exit records—would be well underpinned by the proposed system if it could be made to work?

David Davis: I would go further than that and say that such an arrangement would be a necessary aspect of the system. If the Government are to argue that immigration controls are a high-ranking priority, as I think that they will, embarkation controls and better border controls will be a necessary component.

Alex Salmond: rose—

David Davis: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Gordon Prentice: Was it not the right hon. Gentleman's Conservative Government who scrapped embarkation controls in the smaller ports?

David Davis: If I recall correctly, it was embarkation controls for the EU, which were no longer legal. It was the present Government who scrapped them for the rest of the world. I want to make some progress now.
	Finally, we must examine the very real concerns about civil liberties, which were dismissed far too easily by the Home Secretary. That goes to the heart of the concerns expressed by so many Members on both sides of the House, including some members of the Cabinet, so it is right and proper to discuss them. I think that the Home Secretary was wrong in his article this morning to call those who are concerned about civil liberties "woolly". That is erroneous and does not help the progress of the Bill.
	The scheme proposed today will involve the establishment of a national identity register, the use of the latest technology and the gathering of information on millions of people. That register will be the hub that allows access and collation of vast amounts of data on individuals from many Government databases.
	One issue that has arisen today concerns legal advice from the Attorney-General about data and privacy. In the interest of informed debate on this matter, will the Home Secretary publish the advice from Lord Goldsmith, which would be advantageous for debating the arguments about privacy? In practical terms, any database at the heart of the national identity register must be secure. People who misuse the data, particularly Government officials, must face stiff penalties. At the moment, the Bill has smaller penalties for civil servants than for anyone else, which is the wrong way round.
	We know that unscrupulous people somehow managed to get at information on the police national computer about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and we know that the Pentagon and Microsoft have both been hacked into. The proposed system has to have tens of thousands of access points, so it must be rendered more secure even than Microsoft has so far managed with its own headquarters.
	Parliament must oversee the nature of the data used on the cards and must control who has access to them—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) at the outset of my speech. Those are the sort of safeguards that we want to see in place, especially when, to be frank, we know that the Government sometimes have no concern for people's privacy or civil liberties whatever. This is a Government who regularly smear their opponents—a Goliath who have tried to steamroller Pam Warren from the Paddington Survivors Group, who savaged the 94-year-old pensioner Rose Addis, who spat out the press officer Martin Sixsmith and who rubbished the reputation of David Kelly.
	In an ideal world, we would not need identity cards. Sadly, our world is not ideal, but increasingly dangerous. Today we accept that it is necessary to legislate for the possible introduction of ID cards. It is necessary to put the structure in place. Many people believe that they will be a useful weapon in the fight against crime, fraud and international terrorism. It is right that we listen to those people and support the principle that the architecture for their introduction should be put in place, but it is also right that we ensure that the proposals are scrutinised very carefully, so that we achieve the aims of the Bill at minimum cost and minimum incursion on people's liberty and privacy. That is why we will support the Bill—[Interruption]—but it is also why I commend the motion to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed an eight-minute limit on Back Benchers' speeches, which applies from now.

John Denham: I welcome the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I welcome him to his job. He referred to the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I hope that hon. Members who scrutinise the Bill in Committee will find our report, and the minority reports, a helpful guide to pretty much all the major issues that need to be looked at in detail. I am already grateful to the Government for taking on board at least some of the changes highlighted in the Select Committee's earlier report, particularly in terms of making the aims of the Bill more precise. There have been some changes—not yet enough—to the powers of the commissioner and in the bringing in of the Government's chief scientific officer to advise on the state of development of biometrics. All those are important safeguards.
	From the discussion so far, it is fairly clear that not all right hon. and hon. Members have yet read the Bill in any great detail. I hope that will change in the weeks to come, and I should like to highlight a few important issues.
	In my view, there is no doubt that introducing a national identity register—that is what we should focus on, rather than the cards themselves—brings a change in the relationship between citizen and state, not least because there is a formal requirement to provide one's biometrics to a state register. Nothing like that exists on citizens at the moment, and there are other, perhaps less intrusive, requirements to provide changes of address and other information.
	That, I think, is the only fundamental change in the relationship between the citizen and the state. In the debate so far, it has been hard to understand exactly what it is that the Bill's opponents are seriously worried about. Everyone talks about the Bill as though it were some terrible step into the unknown, but one never hears a precise example of what people are actually worried about, other than the point of principle, which is an arguable one.
	In truth, even if all the data on the new national identity register became freely available, which will not happen and which is not what is proposed, there would be less intrusive information, less private information and less damaging information available through that than is routinely available today to the police, the security services and a whole variety of private companies from telephone companies, credit card companies, store card companies and the like. The fears behind the civil liberties argument, other than those on the principle itself, are, in my view, greatly overstated.
	The question, as the Select Committee said, is whether the potential gains of the system outweigh those fears. To some extent, that depends on individual assessments.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: As my right hon. Friend asked for a concrete example, may I give him one? If the Bill goes through in its present form, it will undoubtedly be possible for the Secretary of State to initiate not primary but secondary legislation—that being the important thing—to add, for instance, criminal convictions to the data stored. That is one concrete example that is undoubtedly right and that causes me and a lot of other people great concern.

John Denham: That issue can be addressed in Committee. I see no reason to do what my hon. and learned Friend suggests. In fact, all criminal convictions are already immediately accessible on the police national computer. It is hard to see why the Government would wish to do that. If somebody is, for example, taken to a police station and arrested, and if the police identify that individual using the national identity register—that is, after all, what it is there for—it will take a mere matter of seconds to establish whether that person is also on the police national computer. I do not see that as a fundamental objection.
	It seems to me that the reason for the card is this: if we believe, as I do, that terrorism is a significant threat; if we believe, as I do, that the facts of illegal immigration, illegal working and abuse of access to public services are not only major issues in their own right but significant social issues for our society, because people perceive all that as being unfair, unchallenged and something that should be dealt with; and if we see criminal identity fraud as a problem, we need to listen to the agencies who tell us, as they told the Select Committee, that having a robust system of personal identity will, in the words of the famous Sir Robert Mark, when talking about motor car tyres, make a "significant contribution" to solving the problem.
	That is what the Select Committee was told. It was not told that terrorism would be abolished, nor that identity fraud would disappear, nor that there would be no benefit abuse, nor that there would be no illegal working. It was told that because it would be easier to tackle points of identity, a robust identity system would be desirable. That is why, in principle, the Bill should go ahead.
	I will give way very briefly to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). I realise that it will cost me time.

Roger Gale: I am most grateful. The hon. Gentleman asks why some of us are concerned about the Bill. The Home Secretary has proposed legislation that, potentially, brings together a failed Child Support Agency system, a failed Inland Revenue tax system, a failed health records system, and a failed police records system. He is talking about spending billions of pounds—

John Denham: indicated dissent.

Roger Gale: It is all right; you have injury time.
	The Home Secretary is talking about introducing technology that will be outdated by the time it is of any use. As if that is not bad enough, he is asking the House to consider the Bill in six sittings of a Committee. A lot of people on both sides of the House would go with the Bill if the Home Secretary were prepared to submit it to a Joint Committee of both Houses.

John Denham: Having dealt with the point of principle, let me come to procurement, which is important. We do not conclude, as a House, that we should not have a Child Support Agency because we have had problems with the computer, or that we should not have a pensions system because we have had problems with the system. The critical thing is to get it right.
	I will say to the Home Secretary that we need to adopt a more open procurement system, with more scrutiny and challenge to each component of that system than is so far apparent. That is what has been done in Italy, and that is why procurement in Italy has been more successful than our track record shows we have been. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues will look at the procurement system, which was raised by the Select Committee as a matter of considerable concern.
	I want to touch briefly on a few more issues that the Government need to deal with to get things right. On cost, it is important that the Home Secretary, in seeking, understandably, to minimise, or at least not to overstate, the cost of the system to central Government must not assume that others will readily pick up the cost of the card reader system, the infrastructure system and so on. We should listen to the Local Government Association. When it gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, it saw the value of having the system but was worried about the costs that it would have to pick up to make use of it.
	The infrastructure costs to support the register are critical to the success of the system. Forgery need not be a problem, provided there is an adequate infrastructure of card readers and that they are used regularly enough. There is a cost to that, although it is nothing like the mathematically erroneous £1 billion mentioned earlier. The Government will need to give detailed costings as quickly as possible.

David Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

John Denham: No, I have given way twice.
	One of the areas that we need to consider further is oversight. There has been a welcome broadening of the powers of the commissioner, but he still lacks adequate recourse for an individual who fears that his or her records have been wrongly accessed or used. That recourse needs to be made clear and explicit in the Bill. I also share the concerns of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about the mechanism for reporting via the Secretary of State rather than through more open reporting.
	None the less, issues of procurement, biometrics and oversight are things that we should be able to get right as the Bill passes through Parliament. My basic point is that we have a series of problems in our society with which a robust system of identity would help us enormously. An ID card and national identity register would enable us to do that. The fears expressed are, as we have just seen, vague and ill stated. The Bill should go ahead tonight so that we can work on the detail.

Mark Oaten: I shall start, because I did not have a chance to do so at Home Office questions, by welcoming the new Home Secretary. I will not take offence at the woolly liberal comments, although they suggest that it is business at usual at the Home Office in terms of the attitudes towards us. I also acknowledge that the Home Secretary, with the support of the shadow Home Secretary, is about to introduce what will clearly be one of the most popular measures that we have seen in this country.
	With 80 per cent. in favour of ID cards, I recognise that it will be a very popular measure. The difficulty is that I do not sense that level of support for ID cards when I talk to people; nor has that level of support come across in this debate. One of the problems is that initially people are attracted to the idea. Nearly everybody whom I speak to about it says at first, "Well, I have nothing to hide. What's wrong with carrying a card?" I happily and freely admit that I also took that view for many years, to such an extent that I supported a private Member's Bill on the issue a couple of years ago. I supported it because at the time I did not have a problem with the issue. I entirely acknowledge that. However, the difficulty arises when one starts to look in more depth at some of the issues. That is why I changed my mind and why I am convinced that by the time the Bill has passed through both Houses, and after proper debate, the Government—with Conservative support—will have introduced one of the most unpopular measures that we have seen in this Parliament.

Des Browne: I do not want to rake over old coals, but the hon. Gentleman has got off lightly on this issue for far too long. It cannot be the case that the hon. Gentleman supported ID cards to the point where—[Interruption.] As a matter of fact, that assertion is not correct. [Hon. Members: "Which one?"] That I was a member of CND. I never was. The hon. Gentleman cannot have been persuaded not only to support ID cards in principle, but to vote for them in the House on the basis that we had nothing to fear from them. He must have had other reasons for supporting the principle of identity cards. Before we accept that he has properly changed his mind on the issue and has not just fallen in—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister will have the opportunity to wind up at the end of the debate, provided there is time. Many Back Benchers want to contribute to the debate and he should leave his intervention there.

Mark Oaten: I will happily rehearse why I have changed my mind. I am concerned about the cost implications and the civil liberty implications. I am not convinced that ID cards will work in relation to terrorism and I do not believe that they will help to tackle benefit or health fraud. It is a completely flawed system and now that I have seen the detail I fundamentally oppose the Bill.

Alex Salmond: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's change of mind. My goodness me, it is not as though the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration has never taken orders from a higher authority. Be that as it may, did the hon. Gentleman detect from the Conservative spokesman, as I did, a lack of enthusiasm for the Bill? When the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) asked what would happen if the proposal for a Joint Committee was not accepted by the Government, we did not appear to get an answer. Did the hon. Gentleman hear it?

Mark Oaten: I was fascinated by the shadow Home Secretary's speech. It was an extremely good speech against ID cards, right up to the final line, in which he urged support for the Bill in one sentence only. I say to the Conservatives that I understand why their leader is nervous so close to an election. He wants to show that he is tough on crime and he does not want to be attacked for being soft on those issues. However, every now and then in politics, instead of chasing the 80 per cent., one has a duty to speak up for the 20 per cent. There is also a duty to try to argue one's case and convince the 80 per cent. that they are wrong. The Conservatives might get more respect if they tried to change views rather than following opinion polls all the time—

Martin Linton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Oaten: No, I have not finished with the Conservatives yet. The five tests are a fig leaf. They are as meaningless as the Chancellor's five tests on the euro. The shadow Home Secretary answered virtually all his tests, yet he concluded that they were still wanting. If the Conservatives end up supporting the Bill, they will have to demonstrate that all the tests have been met. They will struggle to do so as much as the Home Secretary will struggle with the tests.

Martin Linton: Will the hon. Gentleman be more explicit about when he underwent his Damascene conversion? I remind him that he supported a ten-minute Bill on ID cards that went much further than the Government's Bill and would have required that an ID card be carried at all times. Did he change his mind around the time that he accepted a Front Bench job?

Mark Oaten: I have explained that matter and now I wish to deal with the issues as they stand. I shall take the House through the process I have gone through to reach my position. Sometimes in politics things are wrong because they are wrong in practice—they just cannot be done in practical terms. Sometimes in politics things are wrong in principle. Uniquely, ID cards are wrong in practice and in principle. That is why I have come to the conclusion that they are wrong. I shall address the issues of effectiveness, the implications of the database, the cost and the impact, which we have not discussed so far, that the proposals will have on minority and ethnic minority groups in this country.
	The Home Secretary gave several reasons why we must have these cards. I shall start with terrorism, because I acknowledge that there is a serious threat. It is an attractive argument for ID cards because we all want to do what we can to ensure that our country is safe. The Government's argument is that 35 per cent. of terrorists use false or multiple identities. I know that they are not arguing that that means that an ID card system would cut terrorism by a third, but there are problems with the Home Secretary's proposition. The first is that terrorists are capable of carrying out atrocities without changing their identity. The terrorists who hit New York and Madrid all travelled under their own identities. The London nail bomber, David Copeland, made no attempt to disguise his identity, and nor did Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber. Sadly, knowing who someone is does not tell us what they are thinking or what they are about to do. Having the information about identity will not stop determined terrorists, because atrocities have been committed by people who have not changed their identity.
	What of those individuals who do try to change their identity? I come back to the point I raised in my intervention in the shadow Home Secretary's speech, which is how to ensure that terrorists do not enter the country on a false identity. The problem is that terrorists could arrive in the country with false root or seed documentation. When they register, the false information is used to issue them with an ID card. They can then go around with an identity that they have created specifically in this country. That could be overcome if there was an international system to check whether people were using different identities in different countries, as long as they moved within G8 or EU countries that had the same level of biometric testing. However, the reality is that most such individuals will come from the very countries that will not have such technology. They will be able to dash back and forth between their original country and this country without being caught.

Martin Linton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if it were possible for someone to fake an identity and obtain an ID card, the use of biometrics would make it impossible for them to register under any other name? The whole problem of multiple identities would still be addressed, even if what he says were true.

Mark Oaten: The hon. Gentleman entirely misses my point. I acknowledge that it would be difficult to create multiple or false identities for someone who was moving between England, Germany or France, or other countries that have the ability to test the iris. Such people could not change their identity because the iris would give them away. However, terrorists will not be moving between those countries: they will come from countries that do not have the biometric testing ability, and that is the loophole.
	The Government's second reason for introducing the Bill is benefit and health fraud. The Home Secretary advanced some strong arguments about the card's impact on such fraud, but a vast amount of the health and benefit fraud that occurs in the UK has nothing to do with identity. Only about 5 per cent. involves individuals pretending to be somebody whom they are not; most fraud is somebody saying they have a back problem when they do not, or somebody claiming benefits when they are working on the side. That is where the problem lies, and the Government's figures do not stack up to suggest that there is a major problem.
	We received no answers from the Home Secretary about how the process would work. Will there have to be reading equipment in every post office, every benefit office, every hospital and every GP practice? Will the equipment be installed throughout the country, or will we target only certain inner-city areas? Who will operate it? Will it be the GP, the practice nurse or the person behind the post office counter? What kind of training will they have to be given to use all that equipment? What will happen if the equipment breaks down? Who will make the choice about who is to be asked to show their card? Making that choice will put pressure on some individuals.
	I am a hypochondriac and I visit my GP all the time, so people at the surgery know who I am and would not need to ask for my ID card. However, they will have to decide whose card to ask for, and that kind of choice will put them in the front line. I do not think they want that job. In those circumstances, what will happen to people who do not have their card with them? Will they be turned away from medical treatment?

Jon Owen Jones: Is it the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party that people who turn up for services—whether for health or something else—should be treated regardless of their entitlement?

David Heath: Yes, if they are sick.

Jon Owen Jones: So that is the policy. I am grateful to learn that. Anyone who comes into the country on a visitor's visa can be treated, regardless of entitlement.

Mark Oaten: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I shall go down the Daily Express and Daily Mail route of trying to pretend that our health service is being burdened by scroungers coming to this country, he is wrong. I will not go down that route.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that, under the Bill, the National Assembly for Wales can make its own decision about whether to ask for ID cards for the health service. What is more, the Labour National Assembly Government have said that they will not do that.

Mark Oaten: I am delighted to hear that. I am not sure whether it is an invitation to go to Wales for health care.
	The Government claim that illegal working is another reason that we need ID cards. I accept that there is a problem; anybody who saw the tragedy at Morecambe bay realises that something must be done about illegal working. There are, however, existing powers to handle illegal working and the problem of immigration. The Government have set up powers whereby the police can check individuals' working papers, although, in 2002, only two individuals were prosecuted for employing an illegal immigrant. The reason that there were only two is not because those individuals did not have documents that could be checked—they must have those documents—but because it was not a policing priority and it was almost impossible for the police to find their whereabouts. How on earth would an ID card make any difference at all?

Adrian Sanders: On the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), my constituency attracts an enormous number of tourists from Wales. They might come to my constituency without their ID card, not expecting to need medical treatment. If they had an accident, would they have to return to Wales to receive treatment?

Mark Oaten: Let us hope that the accident is not serious.

John Denham: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that one reason that enforcement action against those who employ illegal labour is too low—in my view—is the recognition that the limitations of currently available documents make it difficult for employers to be certain? If there was a gold standard of identity, provided by a national identity register, implementation would be much easier for employers and it would be much easier to come down hard on people who continue wrongly to employ illegal labour.

Mark Oaten: I respect the views of the Chairman of the Select Committee, but I suspect that those who genuinely want to find the documents will find a way forward. The difficulty is that far too many employers do not care one iota and it will not make a blind bit of difference to them whether people have an ID card or a set of documents.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mark Oaten: I want to move on to a second point about illegal working. I have dealt with the practical issues, where I do not think that the card will make a difference. There are also civil liberties concerns about how it will work in practice. The detail of the regulatory impact assessment states:
	"As pressures grow on public services, service providers will have to bring in complex procedures for checking a range of documentation as the old assumption that if you are here you are probably here legally is no longer acceptable. There are also cultural problems about getting service providers to ask only certain groups for proof of identity for fear of being accused of discrimination."
	That is important: only certain groups will be asked for proof of identity.
	That is extraordinary. In their RIA, the Government admit that it is the intention to ask only certain groups for proof of identity. I have to tell the Minister and the Home Secretary that the problems will not just be cultural; there will be serious legal problems if that is indeed what the Government propose to do. Linking illegal working and ID cards will lead—bluntly—to people who do not look British being stopped.
	I want to turn to our other concerns about the Bill. The cost of the measure is the most complex thing to debate, because the figures keep changing and we have received little information about the costs from the Home Office. I accept that the Liberal Democrats cannot have it all ways on costs. We support the principle of changes to passports to keep us in line with the requirements of our international obligations. It would be disingenuous for me to lump all the costs together, but what I have tried to do, and will try to do in the debates ahead, is to separate the elements where we believe that the Government are going too far.
	The Government are going too far by having three biometric tests on passports, as well as an ID system. They must give us accurate figures on costings. We believe that the additional costs to be incurred will be about £85 million a year, plus £50 million a year to run the identity checking service, yet, according to the figures the Government have given us to date, they have not costed the full implications of their plans to tackle benefit fraud and health access.
	According to Home Office figures, each reader will cost between £250 and £750. A crude multiplication—to cover the various routes for access to health and benefits—gives an extremely high figure. For post offices alone—even in relation to the number that are left; I realise that over the last few years the Government have been trying to shut many of them down—the cost would be £11 million. We need more information about the costs. We do not know what is involved, and we cannot do our job of scrutinising the Bill until we know what the total cost will be. The public believe that there is a black hole in the measure, and we share that view.

Richard Allan: Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Government have failed to publish the Office of Government Commerce gateway review documents? They were produced at public expense and I cannot believe that at this stage they contain anything of a sensitive commercial nature. They should be before the House as we debate this important Bill.

Mark Oaten: I agree entirely. It is unacceptable that for reasons of commercial confidentiality in the procurement process, we as the politicians deciding these matters cannot be given that information, whereas companies making bids can. That is not an acceptable way to proceed.

Bob Russell: Does my hon. Friend find it amazing that all the efforts of the Home Affairs Committee to get answers to those questions were refused point-blank by the Home Office?

Mark Oaten: It is extraordinary and unhelpful; we are being asked to support a Bill and to sign a blank cheque. It is also important to note that there are genuine political issues about where we might spend that money. We might all have different priorities for its most effective use. I would have thought that more police and more intelligence officers to support the system might be more effective in dealing with some of the things that the Government are trying to tackle—not least terrorism.
	I am conscious of the fact that many other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall conclude by considering the database itself. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee was right to identify the fact that although the database is, in many ways, the key issue, there are two issues to consider: the civil liberty implications and, frankly, the Government's inability to run such systems in the first place.
	The Government's track record on IT procurement is awful. The projected cost of the Child Support Agency system was £150 million, but the figure ended up at £450 million. The final cost of the Horizon project—an automated Post Office Counters system—ended up at £1 billion and ran three years late. My particular favourite is the NHS IT programme, with expected costs of £6.2 billion. The actual cost was £18 billion, and the figure is still rising. Of course, recently and more seriously, the national automated fingerprint identification system crashed owing to server software difficulties, causing serious problems for the police.
	How will the database be kept up to date? An earlier intervention pointed out the churn on the electoral roll, with individuals moving many times, people changing their addresses and new individuals coming on when they are 18 years old and others being taken off when they die. The scope for error is absolutely enormous, and the track record suggests that costs will get out of control.
	The more important point, however, relates to the principles of what is held on the data system. What can happen in 15 or 20 years? How can the information be linked, for example, to CCTV systems that can individually scan faces and recognise them? Do we want to move into the kind of society where people know exactly who is walking up and down the high street? Is there even a possibility that a future Home Secretary may decide to tag on DNA information? What would be the implications of adding on the vast amount of DNA information that is already collected?

David Davis: I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. Does he think that such a system is impossible? I do not believe that it is. Surely the introduction of the things that he describes—a rather scary prospect—would all be subject to primary legislation.

Mark Oaten: On the first point, although I am sure that the Government could get the system up and running, their track record suggests that the failure rate will be very high indeed. For example, last year 400 people were turned down for a job because it was said that they had criminal records when they did not. If the error rates that we have seen with existing systems are multiplied to cover a population of 60 million, even if the failure rate is 0.01 per cent., an awful lot of people will have difficulties. So there are serious concerns about the implications of the system.

Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Oaten: I am conscious of the fact that other hon. Members want to speak.
	Finally, I want to deal with the most farcical element of the Bill: whether the system is voluntary or compulsory. I cannot understand where the Government are heading. Although I would still oppose the system, intellectually it would be a lot better if it were compulsory. That would stack up, and the Home Secretary would have been able to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) because the scheme would have included the powers for which the police might be looking.
	In my village, my neighbours will have to carry an identity card in a few years' time. I will not have to do so because my passport is not up for renewal until 2012—lucky me—but that is a two-tier system. [Interruption.] The Minister says that people will not have to carry the card, but this is not about whether people have to carry it; it is about whether they must have an ID card in the first place. The problem is that I will not need an ID card, but my neighbours or my wife may have to have one. It will be compulsory for some, but not for others.
	We are walking into a system that is, frankly, chaos. Some people must have the card; some must have one at some point in the future; others will never have to have one because they do not have a passport; but, at an unknown point, which the Home Secretary will decide, we will all need a card. That is a complete mess. A two-tier system will be created in relation to the proof of identity that people will have to carry, and the implications of that are wrong.
	When the card becomes compulsory—I am sure that that is where we are heading—what will it be like for 80 or 90-year-old pensioners to be told that they have to turn up at registration centres to have their fingerprints taken and their irises and photos scanned because the system has suddenly become compulsory? If the Home Secretary thinks that 80 per cent. of people will still be in favour when the public realise that that will happen, he has got another think coming.
	Here we have a £1 billion project that looks set to go over budget, a piece of plastic and a database that will do nothing to tackle terrorism and crime, a system that is neither compulsory nor voluntary and a database that will make the CSA mess up look like a tea party. This is also a debate about changes to our country and to society. If people look like illegal workers or terrorists, they can be stopped. People will have to turn up to centres to have their fingerprints and irises scanned. If they visit a GP or an accident and emergency department, they will have to submit a scan and prove who they are. I urge hon. Members on all sides of the House to reject the Bill. I am afraid that, tonight, a Labour Government, with Conservative support, are turning us from nanny state into a Big Brother state.

David Winnick: I disagree strongly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). He said that he could not understand why there should be such concern and controversy. I serve on the Home Affairs Committee, which he chairs, and he will know that we have had many disagreements on this. I could not agree with the majority report of the Home Affairs Committee. I made my opposition clear and proposed an amendment or minority report.
	If it is true that there were serious disagreements in the Cabinet some months previously and in the shadow Cabinet only last week, I would not exploit that; I would be very pleased. I would think it depressing if either the Cabinet or the shadow Cabinet had agreed on such a serious subject without much controversy. If the press reports are true—members of the Cabinet have not told me about this—there was proper consideration, discussion and apparently disagreement, and I see no reason why not.
	I want to make it perfectly clear tonight, as I have done previously, that if I was persuaded that identity cards would help to stop terrorism or undermine it substantially, I would support them, whatever reluctance I may have on grounds of civil liberties, because the safety and security of this country must come first and foremost. But I am not so persuaded.
	As I and many other hon. Members have often said, the atrocities in Madrid and Istanbul took place despite the existence of identity cards. When the previous Home Secretary came before the Select Committee and I asked him whether ID cards with biometric details—all that he emphasises—would have prevented such atrocities, he said no.

Martin Linton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Winnick: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way. I am putting what is perhaps a minority point of view among Labour Members.
	Surely, if identity cards along the lines proposed would help deter terrorism, the argument would be that they should be introduced much sooner. What will happen between now and their introduction in six or seven years? That makes no sense to me, which is why I am not persuaded that ID cards would prevent the sort of terrorism that has taken place elsewhere from happening in this country. I would be the last person to underestimate the threat of terrorism. We have heard a statement today and my view remains that terrorists will cause much death and destruction, in so far as they can get away with it, and this country will certainly be no exception.
	As for the other arguments about ID cards—those on illegal immigration and working—it has rightly been pointed out that there is little evidence, if any, that an ID card scheme would have stopped what happened in Morecambe bay or, if the 58 Chinese who tragically suffocated had survived, as we would have wished, that it would have prevented them from working in this country. After all, in the continental countries that have identity cards under the democratic system—and previously under dictatorships—the problems of illegal immigration and working have not disappeared or lessened because of any ID scheme that happens to exist there.
	The Home Office should be much tougher in making it far more difficult for certain employers to employ people who have no right to take employment. Those laws already exist. That is already a criminal offence, and I hope that the Government will be tougher in enforcing those laws and regulations.
	The point has been made that, since January 2002, asylum seekers have been given application registration cards, which provide a secure means of recording their details and identity. I do not disagree with that, but why should the rest of us require a form of identification along the lines that the Government are keen to introduce because asylum seekers rightly have such cards?
	I am also worried about function creep. It is interesting to note that, when the Information Commissioner gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, he made the point that, in 1939, there were three stated purposes for bringing in an identity card:
	"for conscription, for national security and for rationing."
	He went on to say that, by 1950, there were 39 stated purposes to explain why identity cards were considered necessary. He said that in the early 1950s, towards the end of the system of identity cards,
	"the main rationale for identity cards was the prevention of bigamous marriages."
	If we have identity cards, the first question that people will be asked by the police, a hospital or their general practitioner will inevitably be, "Where is your identity card?" Some of my hon. Friends may ask what is wrong with that, but I believe that there is a lot wrong with it. It is not necessary because we have done without such cards for more than 50 years. Ministers make the point that the police and security authorities want them to be reintroduced, but if it had been left up to the police, I suspect that identity cards would never have been abolished.
	I also have considerable worries about the national identity register and its unique identity register number for all of us. Under the Bill, people who move house will have to register their change of address with the authorities. Some might ask what is wrong with that, but there is no reason why we should have to do so without strong and compelling reasons, especially regarding terrorism. I am yet to be persuaded of such reasons.
	Although I wish that I could argue otherwise, there is a lot of public support for identity cards. Opinion polls tell us that there is such great support at the moment because people have high expectations of identity cards and believe that they will resolve such problems as illegal working and immigration. However, that will not happen in practice, and people will be disappointed. Additionally, when people consider the cost of getting the cards, I am not sure that such support will exist.
	I shall oppose the Bill tonight because I have no alternative. There is no doubt that the Government will have a large majority, especially with the support of the Tories. However, that is all the more reason why the section of opinion in the country that is opposed to identity cards should be reflected in the House of Commons tonight, which is why I will vote as I shall.

Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Identity Cards Bill because it would lead to an unreasonable intrusion into the liberties and privacy of the citizen; it would not achieve benefits proportionate to the cost, as the underlying technology is likely to prove unreliable; and the introduction of such cards is likely to lead to a requirement that they be carried at all times and such a requirement would be objectionable in principle and would lead to serious tension between the police and the citizen."
	The hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) has made it plain that he will vote against the Bill and so will I. I acknowledge, of course, that there will be benefits attached to identity cards, but the real question is whether the benefits will be proportionate to the various disadvantages that hon. Members have identified; I do not believe that they will be.
	It is worth pointing out, as it has been pointed out before, that most terrorists operate under their true identities, but fail to disclose their intentions. Many countries that have suffered from terrorism—Spain is a good example—have laws that require the carrying and production of ID cards. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, President Bush, who is surely not a bleeding-heart liberal, has made it plain that ID cards will form no part of his anti-terrorism policy.

John Robertson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman cites the Madrid bombings. Would he be interested to hear that the Spanish police have said that nearly all the terrorists involved in that horrible event have now been arrested thanks to the ID cards in that country?

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is not really addressing the point. Spain has suffered for years from Basque terrorism and, of course, the cards did not stop the bombing in the first place.
	There is no doubt that identity cards would have an impact on policies to control illegal immigration, but let us remember that the real problem with illegal immigration is due to overstaying, which is caused by the Government's failure to deport, rather than a failure to identify those who should be deported. I am sure that benefits on fraud could be derived from ID cards, but I have never encountered a security document that could not be forged, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). In any event, most fraud arises not from false identities, but from a misrepresentation of underlying facts and entitlements, so the benefits would not be as great as the proponents of ID cards argue.
	May I put forward the counterbalancing arguments to explain why we should not follow the policy?

Des Browne: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the Cabinet Office's estimate—it was published separately from any consideration of ID cards—that identity fraud costs the citizens of this country £1.3 billion a year?

Douglas Hogg: I have no knowledge of whether that is right or wrong, but the overall cost must be balanced against the disadvantages that I shall outline.
	The first disadvantage is the nature of the Bill itself. It is an enabling Bill and most of the subsequent requirements will be made by secondary legislation. Of course, I acknowledge that those order-making powers will be subject to affirmative resolution, but that is not a proper way to supervise intrusions into the liberty of the subject of the kind contemplated in the Bill.

John Bercow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Douglas Hogg: No, I am afraid that I must make some progress.
	A cost of £3 billion has been suggested, but I do not know whether that is right or wrong. However, I do know that almost every public sector budget ever contemplated has been seriously overrun, so I suspect that that will be the case with ID cards as well. Irrespective of whether the figure will be £3 billion, £1 billion or £5 billion, are there not better ways of spending that money to achieve the intended purposes of the Bill?
	I do not pretend to be an expert on technology, but I have noticed that all major computer schemes introduced by Governments of all shades have experienced appalling problems. The situation in the Child Support Agency is a specific case in point, but we all remember what happened with the Passport Agency. If there is a failure with the identity card system, it could cause not only inconvenience, but grave injustice, people's disentitlement to benefit and perhaps exposure to criminal penalties.
	I shall move on from practicalities to the question of principle; I propose to be brief. There is no doubt that ID cards will tilt the balance away from the citizen towards the state, but we should not do that unless an absolutely compelling case for it can be made. We should be clear about this too: once the possession of cards is mandatory, and perhaps before, the police will use their powers to stop and search in a very vigorous manner. Bearing it in mind that the stated purposes of the scheme are to combat terrorism and illegal immigration, we can also be sure that those powers will be used most vigorously against ethnic minorities. I have been in the House long enough to remember the rows over the stop-and-search powers arising from the Vagrancy Act—the old sus law. The coming rows will be infinitely greater, because these powers will be used to a much greater extent.
	I am absolutely certain that, if we give the green light to the Bill and possession of an identity card becomes a requirement, there will also be a duty to carry the card and produce it on demand. The only way to make the cards truly effective is to require people to carry them and to produce them. We should remember that the National Registration Act 1915 was amended in 1918 to make production on demand mandatory.
	There is no point in saying, "We will give a potential terrorist or illegal immigrant 48 hours in which to produce the card at the nearest police station." That is nonsense: a potential wrongdoer in that category will simply disappear into the hinterland from which he or she may have come. I do not wish to give officers of the state a right to stop me—or anyone else—and demand that I produce a card. Inevitably, those officers of the state would be given a power to arrest if the card could not be produced. That seems to me to impose a burden on the citizen and give the officers of the state a power that I do not think the House should give them.
	I concede that benefits may attach to ID cards. I accept that the five tests proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) are useful, but we must set the Bill in the overall context of what we are about. I do not think that the arguments advanced in favour of it outweigh the disadvantages that I have ventured to present to the House.

Jon Owen Jones: I support the Government's proposals and have for some time.
	The arguments advanced so far today have tended—rightly—to concentrate on the need to improve security. Massively destructive and indiscriminate terrorism is a new threat in the world and necessitates new precautions. ID cards cannot guarantee security, as we have heard many times—nothing can—but to argue that, because an ID card system did not protect Madrid, it is therefore useless is to argue against any imperfect system, such as a police force. It does not follow that, because we cannot do everything, we should do nothing.
	There is another reason for an ID system, however, and I want to concentrate on that. ID cards are needed to protect our welfare state. I grew up in a world very different from the one in which my children are growing up. The mining village in which I was raised had seen and was to see very hard times, but it had a strong sense of community. There was, perhaps, too little opportunity for individuality and diversity, which may be a bad thing, but the cohesiveness of the community was a great support and comfort.
	My home village still exists, but the work has gone, and with it the shared experience and much of the community spirit. I realise now—it was a hard realisation—that most of Britain was not like that village even in the 1960s. Certainly very little of Britain is like it now. The architects of the welfare state, such as Aneurin Bevan, came from and served communities like that, where we were all our brothers' keepers, perhaps because our brothers were much the same as us. The reforming Governments of 1906 and 1945 had a majority in favour of welfare because of their shared experiences—because welfare was something that "someone like you" needed, or might need.
	Modern Britain is a much more diverse place, and globalisation will continue to make it more diverse. Such trends need not undermine the welfare state, but they alter the basis on which it was built. Welfare in the 21st century must reform to survive and we must ensure that it retains the support of those who pay for it.
	In my experience—not an experience that everyone shares—little annoys citizens more than the payments of benefits to those whom they believe to have no entitlement. How do we define entitlement? It is very confusing. I have a long list of examples, but for the benefit of others who wish to speak I will not read it out. I shall confine myself to one or two instances.
	A British state pensioner living for more than three months a year in a non-European economic area country who has lived for 10 continuous years in the United Kingdom previously is entitled to free NHS treatment for conditions that arose after his or her arrival in the UK. The same applies to his or her spouse and children under 16, or under 19 if in further education. That is crystal clear—not, I think.
	There are huge lists—whole books, indeed—whose aim is to explain whether people are entitled to services, and which services they are or are not entitled to. There are obvious examples of non-entitlement; at least, I thought that they were obvious until I discussed the matter with a Liberal Democrat earlier. I should have thought that most Members would agree that an American tourist benefiting from a £50,000 heart operation on the NHS in a London hospital constituted an obvious abuse. Other cases are not so clear. For example, a foreign student paying £900 for an English language course is entitled to free health care for himself and his family and free education for his children. That is not an abuse, because it is a legal entitlement, but it is sustainable only if such cases are rare exceptions.

Peter Lilley: The hon. Gentleman seems to be trying to argue in favour of identity cards on the basis of how complicated the procedures for establishing entitlement are. Is he not actually saying that, if the card is to be used as an entitlement, it will contain a vast array of information over and above what the Government have described so that the user's entitlement or otherwise can be established?

Jon Owen Jones: That is a fair point, but what I am trying to say is that we need clearer and better understood criteria to establish entitlement. Once we have established entitlement, it will require an ID card. We will need to ensure that there is some form of ID system to make that entitlement system work. However, I do not anticipate that the right hon. Gentleman shares my desire to protect the welfare state in the first place. He may find that undermining the welfare state is desirable. I do not share that view.

John Barrett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that having an ID card will not affect entitlement if the individual is lying about their circumstances and that that is the problem that exists as regards benefit fraud and attempting to obtain benefits from the health service that one may not be entitled to? It will not be helped by an identity card.

Jon Owen Jones: Yet again, the system is criticised for not being perfect. No, it will not perfectly remove all abuses, but it will remove some.
	Some recent research suggests that there is an inverse relationship between welfare and diversity, pointing out that the most homogeneous countries, such as the Scandinavian countries, have the most extensive welfare systems, while highly diverse countries, such as the USA, have much more individualistic societies. There are many other variables, and I do not believe that we can necessarily show cause and effect, but those who believe the welfare state to be the greatest achievement of reforming government in the 20th century have no room for complacency on these issues. The preservation of an extensive social system will require this Government and future Governments to define entitlement carefully and an ID system will be essential in recognising that entitlement.

John Gummer: I am in favour of identity cards and have always been so, and one must take seriously the pressure for them from the police and the security forces. But I have rarely heard a worse definition or defence of identity cards than the one that I heard from the new Home Secretary. Support for identity cards is rushing away simply because there is a huge lack of trust in the Government. If the Government want an identity card system, they must address properly the reason why so many sensible people find the proposals unacceptable.
	The Chairman of the Select Committee said that it was hard to understand the opposition. Let me perhaps explain it. In a recent debate—yet another one of those on the subject of the criminal law—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) ended his speech with a peroration, in which he claimed that the former Home Secretary was the most illiberal Home Secretary for a hundred years. Immediately after, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) chided my right hon. and learned Friend, saying that he had been very unfair to the Home Secretary, that the Home Secretary was not only the most illiberal Home Secretary for the last hundred years, but would be seen as the most illiberal Home Secretary for the next hundred years as well. So there is a pretty universal view that for a long time the Government have been enacting legislation that has been opposed strongly by any of us who have freedom and liberty as part of the reason why we were elected. This Government have behaved in a way that explains why people are very suspicious of this proposal.
	I had to ask Mr. Speaker for support when we did not reach a particular amendment after we had been voting on a range of amendments in the last Criminal Justice Act because it was the only amendment during the whole of the proceedings on that legislation on which I would be voting on the right of the Government. In every other case I had been voting on the left of the Government and my constituents were beginning to be rather confused, as indeed I was, on the position in which the Government were putting me.
	So trust is crucial, and when one looks at this motion—one that I have come to support and will vote for—the first thing that I must ask about is the timetable. It is absolutely not possible for the Home Secretary to try to reassure me and my hon. Friends who want to support him that somehow or other there will be a proper debate when we will have a timetable motion that leads us to the end of it before the end of the next month. It is unacceptable. To suggest that we will debate a major change without time for the House to do so properly yet again shows that the Government do not care about the House of Commons, do not care about proper debate, and believe that it is acceptable to have a few perfunctory discussions and then say that the House of Commons has agreed.
	That is why I have to say that I do not believe that the Home Secretary will get the legislation through in a form that is anything like the present proposals unless he makes some pretty big changes now. If he thinks that I am being overdramatic, I remind him about the casino Bill, which is now a wholly different Bill and is so pathetic that no one could object to it because it does none of the things that the Government promised in the first place. They discovered that what started off as, they thought, a popular move, they themselves made unpopular.
	That is precisely what we have here. We have something that I believe to be right and in the right way could help in dealing with both illegal immigration and terrorism, but if presented in the way that the Government have will be a disaster, and they will find themselves deeply unpopular as a result, in exactly the same way as they have over the casino Bill. They thought that it would be a popular measure, they have managed to make it less popular, and if they go on as they are they will make it totally unpopular.
	The way to change this is, first, to have a Joint Committee of both Houses so that the Bill can be properly considered and Parliament can be known to have given its opinion in a sensible and effective way. A change of this size, of this momentum, needs to have such scrutiny. The fact that the Government have cast it aside is yet again an example of the fact that the Government do not care about the House or Parliament as a whole. We have to press that in any such matter.
	Secondly, the system cannot be run by the Government; it must be run by an independent commissioner who stands outside the Government and who reports to Parliament. There have been two examples of the successful introduction of information technology, both of them by one of the most independent quasi-Government organisations, the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue did both extremely well, effectively and to time, but it did it independently, it did it itself, and it does not report directly as is proposed here.
	I want something even more independent than that. I want a body that is clearly independent, which can act only specifically within the terms of the Bill as laid down by the House. I want to remove from the Bill the Government's ability to use affirmative legislation, because people outside think that if a measure is brought before Parliament, there has been a debate. They do not understand our system. They do not know that there is no debate at all and that a measure cannot be defeated because in any circumstances the Government can use their Whip. Therefore, we need a different system.
	If those Opposition Members who agree with the principle of having identity cards, who believe that we cannot say that just because there has been fraud we should not have paper money, for example—we cannot have a system which says that we cannot have anything because there might be abuse; we cannot say that because a measure will soon be outdated we had better not do it at all, or we would never buy a computer; nor can something be opposed because one is so opposed to anything that might be used by the EU that one votes against it in any case; that is barmy and we know exactly why some people are making such points—[Interruption.] There are some hon. Friends behind me whose whole purpose in life is to say those things, but I do not listen to that kind of argument.
	The Government should listen to the fundamental argument, which is that the people who are friends of passing this legislation cannot agree with it unless it is changed fundamentally during its passage through the House. Although we may vote for it in the first place, we cannot vote for it later unless it is independently scrutinised, is subject to parliamentary decision making, and is clearly restricted to the purposes for which the Government claim that it is introduced. A timetable motion such as this is abhorrent and completely unacceptable in a democratic society. The Government must think again, or they will have the same dog's breakfast with this as they had on the casino Bill and they will have turned a popular measure into a disaster.

Andrew Bennett: Sadly, I shall not be supporting my hon. Friend the Minister in the Lobby tonight. I warn him that, from my long experience in the House, I know that it is always a sign that something is going wrong when those on the two Front Benches support each other. There is also something seriously wrong when as many voices on both sides of the House are questioning their views.
	The first objection is that, if politics is about priorities, we are earmarking far too many resources for the Bill, when we have not got enough resources for many other things that I would like as a socialist. Whether the amount spent is £3 billion, £5 billion or more, I believe that the money would be far better spent on eliminating child poverty, providing affordable housing, ensuring that our cities have good public transport systems or care for the elderly.
	We also have to question the cost to the individual. I have no difficulty if the amount is £70 to £100 for an individual; if a family want to go abroad, they will have to get passports, and if the cost is between £300 and £400, that is perfectly all right. We must, however, face up to the fact that if the Bill is to cut benefit fraud, we will have to deal with families on very low incomes. For them, acquiring identity cards for the whole family will be a considerable expense, and it is certainly not something that we should push them into.
	On technology, almost everyone in the House has questioned whether we can introduce the technology for such a scheme. The Child Support Agency, family credits, pensioner credits and all the disasters have been mentioned. The problem with that new technology is not that it fails to deal with 90 or 95 per cent. of cases, but the small 2 or 3 per cent. where a disaster is created. That small percentage will be the problem with ID card technology, whether the difficulties arise in working out the biometrics or other areas. Until we can build into any technological system some way of dealing with those hard cases, we will have a problem. The sad thing is that common sense is not all that common anyway, but as far as computers are concerned, it is absolutely non-existent. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the crucial thing is how we find a way around those hard cases so that we do not cause a great deal of misery and hardship for people who find it very difficult to get their ID card when people around them are getting cards without any difficulty at all.
	I accept that crime and terrorism can be very effectively dealt with by ID cards, but that can happen only if the cards are compulsory and it is compulsory that everybody carries them all the time. I went to the Soviet Union as a student in 1958, and I was very impressed with a lot of what I saw. One day when I was coming up from the tube, two or three people pushed down the escalator past me going the wrong way. Why were they coming down? At the top, people coming out of the station were being stopped by the police and having their ID checked. If they did not have their ID, they were taken away. If we are prepared to argue for a society in which we have regular police checks at which the ID is demanded and verified, fair enough, but I certainly do not want that sort of society. I am not convinced that the new system will have any impact at all on crime and terrorism unless we travel a distance that I believe is completely unacceptable in this country.
	We must also work out what happens in respect of people who lose their ID card. Constituents come regularly to my advice bureau having lost some crucial piece of paper, and it is often very difficult for them to get a replacement. We cannot make it easy for people to get replacement ID cards, or it will become less and less important for them to look for cards that they have mislaid. Penalties will be needed for people who lose their cards, but those penalties should not be so great as to mean that the ID card becomes another problem for somebody with a chaotic lifestyle.

Martin Linton: Does my hon. Friend not appreciate that, with the advent of biometric cards, for the first time in history, it will not matter if people lose their card, because a new one can be issued only to somebody with the same biometrics? That will overcome the problem of people having to track down pieces of paper, shuffle them up to the post office and worry if they lose one of them. For the first time, they will have a secure identity.

Andrew Bennett: The theory is that, if somebody lost their card, they would simply go and demand another, their biometrics would be checked and they would get another. There would then be a spare card.

Martin Linton: Nobody else can use it.

Andrew Bennett: It is not true that nobody else can use the card. That is one of the problems. People can be caught for illegally using a card only if someone is going to check it. That is the difficulty: false security, which is my next point. We all have House of Commons passes. There was a time at which, when an hon. Member entered the House of Commons, a policeman looked at them and their card, but that does not happen any longer; we can simply push our card into one of the machines. That creates a false security.
	I have seen youngsters in pubs with so-called ID cards, and they can pass them around when someone goes to the bar. It is perfectly all right if there is a reader at that point, but we will not have readers on every street corner to check the cards. That is the problem—a false sense of security.

Des Browne: My hon. Friend is advancing an argument against identification full stop.

Andrew Bennett: We have to be very careful with ID cards, and the sensible solution is to let people have the peripheral cards that they currently have, not to insist that they have a national card.
	I intended to be brief, and I come to my last point: the desire to make changes by secondary legislation and the great number of powers in the Bill in respect of which the Government can come back to the House for an order under the affirmative procedure. There is a huge difference between trying to get primary legislation through the House and introducing secondary legislation. Primary legislation takes several months at the quickest and more often than not takes nine months. There is not only the debate in the Chamber and the argument in Committee; it is the debate in the country that is important. That happens on primary legislation, but regulation can be announced one day, and with a big Government majority, it can be introduced within 48 hours or so of publication.
	That is a change in the nature of legislation, and I argue very strongly that we should not have the ID cards legislation at all, and that we should certainly not be introducing in that legislation powers for Governments fundamentally to change it and drift towards what will in effect become a police state. I am totally opposed to the legislation.

Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) told us that he had changed his mind and that he was now against both the principle and the practice. He voted for the principle earlier in his short parliamentary career, but he did not choose to explain to us why his views on it had changed, although that change appears to have coincided with his appointment to his present responsibilities.
	I, too, have changed my mind, albeit over a longer period. When I came to this House, I would not have supported the legislation, but I do this evening. I argue that I have changed my mind because the world around me has changed. It has changed in two respects. 9/11, about which much is said and whose trauma is real and far reaching, told us all that we had a new breed of criminal. The subsequent rash of suicide bombers simply reinforces the message that the world of terrorism and criminality has changed.
	However, the other thing that has changed, for better or for worse—I had some reservations as we progressed down this road—is that the state and society in general intrude into my life to a far greater extent than when I first entered this House. My passage down the street is monitored by cameras and my pocket is full of bank cards. The other day, my bank helpfully called me to query what it thought might have been the fraudulent use of one of my credit cards. If the weekend press is to be believed, all hon. Members will soon have to wear their passes in this place for the first time ever. I am inundated by unsolicited commercial mail from people who know about my life, my quality of life and my habits, and who try to turn that information into a commercial project.
	Two and half weeks ago, I went to the United States for my mother-in-law's funeral. In the process, my iris was photographed and my fingerprints were taken. It would be bizarre to argue against this legislation, when I have submitted myself to it in the United States in the past month. The world has changed.
	I had the privilege of being one of five right hon. Members—Privy Councillors—who served on the Select Committee that reviewed the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and that reported to the Home Secretary some months ago. We were all impressed by the growth of identity theft in not only this country, but on a much wider scale. We made recommendations about the need to tighten the fight against identity theft. As we were a Committee of Privy Councillors and had had access to the security services and to the police, we could not publish the evidence, but I assure the House that it was real and significant. We should look for new and additional measures to address that problem over and above the more traditional approaches.
	I respect the opposition to the Bill because, as I have said, I might have been part of it. One of the inadequacies of the argument against the Bill is that the excellent must be the enemy of the good. Nobody whom I know—I remind the House that I was a security Minister—ever argues that because a proposal is not perfect, it should not be implemented, although it would provide an additional benefit.
	I listened carefully to the Home Secretary, who made it clear that he is introducing the legislation not as a panacea or cure, but as an additional benefit in a changed and more threatening world. Having said that, I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and other hon. Members in saying that the Bill must be amended.
	The Bill must be strengthened as a protection against function creep. I have had the privilege of being in government, so I am not making a partisan point when I say that function creep is an inherent temptation to all Governments. In that regard, strengthening the Bill is important. Each one of us should have guaranteed access to whatever information the system holds about us. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 may not be sufficient in that regard, and that matter must be debated.
	I also agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal that the commissioner should be responsible to Parliament, not to Government. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary made that point, and I reiterate it because I believe in it so strongly. I also agree with those who have said that given the sensitive nature of the Bill, which goes to the heart of who we are and how we see ourselves as a nation, any changes should be by primary legislation, not secondary legislation.
	When we debate a matter of principle in this House, it tends to polarise views and the language tends to shift to the ends of the political spectrum. We would do the nation a service if we resisted that temptation tonight and recognised that a serious benefit may derive from the Bill. Although the Bill is not a panacea for the future, it is an opportunity to do good in a changed and more threatening world.

Martin Linton: This week, a number of journalists—and indeed my Whip—asked me whether I support the Government proposals on ID cards. I told them that they do not need to ask me whether I support ID cards, because I was the MP who suggested that the Government should introduce them in the first place, when I was a member of the Home Affairs Committee.
	My idea was called "entitlement cards", and it was suggested by the Home Affairs Committee report on border controls, which was published in January 2000. I suggested that one would not need to carry the entitlement card and that one would not be asked for it on the street, but that one would need it to establish one's entitlement to a public service, such as registering with a GP or school or applying for a benefit or student loan.
	Nearly five years down the line, what is essentially the same idea has gone through all the possible parliamentary stages that one can imagine—White Paper, public consultation, draft Bill, Select Committee report and Government response—and it has finally reached the Floor of the House of Commons as a Bill, which I warmly welcome and support.
	Practically the only change to the original proposal that we discussed five years ago is that the Home Office, having launched the card as an "entitlement card", has decided to revert to "identity card", because it found from focus groups that people preferred it. I am not sure whether it is right, because I called it an "entitlement card" to emphasise that it is not a must-carry-at-all-times identity card and that it does not confer any powers on the police, unlike the South African pass laws or before them the Nazi pass laws.
	Calling the card an "entitlement card" emphasises two things that resonate with the British voter. First, that the card concerns what we, as individuals, are entitled to. Secondly, that it concerns fairness, everyone getting their due and not jumping queues. Those reassurances are still needed.

David Taylor: The use of public services, especially the NHS, by non-UK residents has never been costed or assessed, and it has been left to the poison pens of right-wing scribes to throw around figures of obscure origin to feed insecurity and injustice among the British electorate.

Martin Linton: Indeed; that is a good argument in favour of entitlement cards. The point has been made a number of times that people might be refused emergency treatment if they do not have their card. That is wrong; the health service never asks for identification for accident and emergency treatment. It is only when treatment becomes longer term that the issue of identity is raised.
	Hospital authorities already raise the question of identity for long-term treatment. Since April this year, longer procedures have been introduced to ensure that all health authorities check the identity of people who receive long-term treatment, and particularly whether they are holidaymakers or have residence status. It will be simpler to establish that fact because people will not need to produce so many pieces of paper.

Richard Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman really envisage every health service outpost in the land, including those that cannot afford scanners for medical purposes, buying scanners for ID purposes and installing them at huge expense? Is that what he wants to happen?

Martin Linton: That is no more and no less than what happens at present. It is already the duty of health authorities to check the residence status of people who have long-term treatment.

Richard Allan: What about scanners?

Martin Linton: They will use scanners if they want to or if it is simpler for them. It is up to public services what use they make of ID cards and scanners.

John Mann: Does not my hon. Friend agree that my daughter, who is extremely allergic to penicillin, should have the right to an identity card that is linked to a database so that if she were taken into accident and emergency it would be possible to check whether to treat her with penicillin?

Martin Linton: As I said, accident and emergency departments do not require proof of identity. When people who are on holiday are taken to A and E, their entitlement is not checked because it is an emergency—it is checked only when they need longer treatment. I cannot see how identity cards will do anything other than make the process simpler.
	As I have pursued this issue over the past few years, I have seen a sea change in attitudes; indeed, my own attitude has changed. The number of people arguing against identity cards on principle has continued to dwindle. However, it is clear from the early-day motions that have been signed that there are still Members on both sides of the House who are very unhappy about the issue, and I want briefly to discuss some of their arguments.
	The Bill makes it clear that there will be no compulsion to carry ID cards. There are no new powers for the police. There is no change in entitlement to public services, and emergency health care will still be free. There is no more information on the ID card than is already collected by Government; indeed, it will relate only to one's identity—name, date of birth and possibly address—and residence entitlement.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: That is the position now. However, does not my hon. Friend agree that under the Bill as it stands, any Secretary of State will be able through secondary legislation to increase the amount of information? For instance, he could add everything that is held on the national police computer, including a person's associates, what they are suspected of, and the number of times that they have been arrested, and that information would be available to every Government Department that he designated. Does my hon. Friend agree with that, and if so what has he to say about it?

Martin Linton: I am conscious of the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That argument—the thin end of the wedge, or function creep argument—is used all the time. I understand that it will appeal to libertarians, but it is a strange argument for parliamentarians to use, given that it will be under our control whether any decisions are taken by future Parliaments on Bills that extend the effect. This Bill specifically rules out any must-carry card. If people are worried by that argument, it should be used not as an excuse for sitting back and doing nothing but for strengthening parliamentary scrutiny.
	Another argument, which was alluded to by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), is the perfectionist argument—that because ID cards will not stop all international terrorism overnight or end all crime they are wrong and we should do nothing. The fallaciousness of that argument should be immediately apparent to every Member of this House. The mere fact that something will not do everything is no argument against doing something.
	A further argument mentioned by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire is, "I'm against ID cards because they would only work if they were made compulsory and you had to carry them at all times. I am against that, so I'm against the whole idea." That is just another form of the perfectionist argument, but it is completely fallacious because nobody is suggesting must-carry cards. The argument for the effectiveness of entitlement cards was based on their use in relation to public services. Those who say that they will not completely solve international terrorism miss the point completely, because nobody claimed that they would in the first place.
	We have to deal with the fact that several new types of crime have arisen in this country almost entirely because of the lack of any kind of internal checks. There is identity fraud, a fair amount of which is to do with multiple applications for benefits and the use of multiple identities in different ways. Health tourism may not involve a huge loss of money, but the fact that it does not cost billions of pounds should not be an argument against making it more difficult for people who are on holiday to claim medical treatment without paying. As for illegal working, an ID card would make it much easier for employers to check the residence status of potential employees; equally, it would be easier for the authorities to enforce sanctions against employers who are caught using people who have no work status.
	People trafficking is another, particularly pernicious, form of crime that has been called into being by the fact that once people enter this country we have no internal checks. When my colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee went over to Sangatte to ask people why they chose to come to this country rather than stay in France, they were often told that it was simply because of the lack of any internal checks.
	Where I do criticise the Government is in their presentation of this important policy almost entirely in terms of its convenience for Government. It should be explained and defended in terms of its convenience for the individual. At the moment, we have wallets bulging with a host of different identity cards, and the new cards could be used to replace travel passes, library cards, driving licences, passports, benefits cards, proof of age cards, electoral registration cards, organ donor cards, Connexions cards, and application and registration cards. Ultimately, we have to understand that the individual would be the greatest beneficiary of a move towards identity cards. I strongly support the Bill.

David Trimble: Time is limited, and there are only a limited number of points that can be made. Given the time limit on speeches, many hon. Members will be unable to speak, and those who do will not be able to say very much, yet this is a huge subject and this debate has been truncated by the earlier statements and other matters. That in itself is not satisfactory.
	Another unsatisfactory matter is the programme motion, which aims to get the Bill out of Committee by 27 January. That is simply ludicrous when one considers all the issues involved. When the Home Secretary spoke, there was such a rush of interventions on a broad range of issues that my impression was that he often had to abandon his text or truncate it hugely. Even so, he took up a very large slice of the time that is available.
	As other hon. Members have pointed out, many of the provisions in the Bill will be spelled out in delegated legislation, which means that they will not be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. This is a very important issue, but it is clear that it will not be given proper scrutiny in this House. I should say in passing that that is partly due to this terrible thing called modernisation, which has done more damage to this House and to parliamentary democracy than anything else that has happened in my time. The Government need to reflect on that. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made good points on that and the Government should reflect on them.
	The Home Secretary clearly did not understand what I meant when I referred to a common travel area in an intervention. The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration subsequently responded to the point but I do not believe that he covered it. I meant the common travel area that exists in the British Isles between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. If identity cards were introduced for UK citizens yet the position continued whereby all citizens of the Republic of Ireland or people who might legally be able to reside there can travel to and through the United Kingdom with no travel documents—they do not need a passport or any other travel document—there would be a huge problem and loophole.
	It is not sufficient for the Minister to claim that the European Union will introduce common travel documents when travel documents are not required. If the proposal reaches its final stage of being a compulsory identity card system, it will be necessary to have persuaded the Irish Republic to introduce an almost identical system. A common or shared database will probably be needed for it to operate. I do not know whether any of those matters have been considered, and that was the reason for my intervention. I hope that they will be considered.
	There was some discussion about the form that the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) has; I have even more form on the subject. I must tell the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) that my form dates back to 1992. From then onwards, I tabled amendments and proposals in Committee and on the Floor of the House for the introduction of identity cards. I did that for the simple reason that the then Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Ronnie Flanagan, put it at the top of the list of measures that he wanted for strengthening his operations to deal with terrorism. He wanted that despite the fact, which the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) pointed out, that we had had photo ID driving licences in Northern Ireland since the early 1980s that were used as the basis of a database, by reference to which the security forces—the police and the Army—stopped people. Although that had been the position since the early 1980s, the Chief Constable considered it inadequate. He needed more and I therefore supported the concept, to which I am consequently tied.
	I believe that the concept is right and that the point about civil liberties is overdone. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) made the point that so many things currently happen that enable records to be kept. I wish we had time to show that, but if we only consider the way in which possession of a mobile phone exposes one to huge surveillance and provides a tremendous amount of information, that makes the point. Supermarket loyalty cards have also been mentioned. Again, they enable a tremendous amount of information to be gathered.
	The problem is not the information but the way in which it might be handled. The points about the need for the commissioner to be independent were well made. I hope that the Government will consider those matters because the provisions in the Bill are not sufficient. There is a host of practical issues to consider—for example, what information to include, how it is accessed and so on. However, I remain attached in principle to identity cards and especially to a national identity register. That is important for many reasons.
	In Northern Ireland, we found that there was good reason to believe that many people on the electoral register did not exist and that there were bogus registrations. I suspect that that applies in England. The measures, based on national insurance numbers, that were introduced in Northern Ireland have had a significant effect. If we had a national identity register, there would be no need for them and there would be greater confidence in, for example, the electoral register. I fear that hon. Members are sometimes unwilling to face up to the extent of the problem. I believe that a similar problem of electoral abuse, which existed in Northern Ireland, applies in cities here. That is an additional reason for ID cards.
	I want to pick up the point about devolution. We were teased earlier about what the Labour Administration in Cardiff would do and given some hints about the actions of the Labour Administration in Edinburgh. They are both old Labour Administrations and the Government may need to act to get them into line. However, if recent negotiations proved successful and a Democratic Unionist party-Sinn Fein coalition took over the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, what might happen? Although old Labour may be slightly foreign or detached from the Government Front Bench, a DUP-Sinn Fein coalition would be from a totally different planet. The idea that it would have some of the powers for which the Bill provides beggars belief. I suspect that the Government will have to find methods of extending measures to the devolved Administrations, just as I believe that the scheme will eventually be introduced.
	I understand why the scheme will be voluntary at the beginning. Much work is required to build up a system and ensure that it works effectively. It will take years, and it will also be years before we are in a position to move to an automatic identity system that is effective throughout the United Kingdom and marries up with actions elsewhere in Europe. However, we need proper scrutiny now, and we need the Government to be more flexible in the succeeding weeks than they currently appear to be.

Gwyn Prosser: The earliest form of identity documents in this country were probably the letters of introduction that travellers used in the time of William the Conqueror. However, those early papers contained no description of the holder and certainly no image. They were written in French, the language of diplomacy. Some speeches in the debate lead me to believe that some hon. Members would like to revert to that standard of identity, but without the French, of course. However, I believe that we should move towards a more succinct and more reliable system and that the majority of us want to improve standards of security.
	I am another convert. Until 1999, like most of my colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party, the wider Labour party and probably the general population, I had no strong views on identity cards. On balance, I was probably unpersuaded of the need for their introduction. However, events in my Dover constituency in that year forced me to examine the question afresh.
	By 1999, many asylum seekers and illegal immigrants had arrived in Dover by hiding in the channel tunnel freight trains and in the backs of lorries on the cross-channel ferries. Consequently, we were accommodating an ever-increasing number of asylum seekers and overseas visitors, who caused us problems and posed important questions.
	There was much speculation, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) alluded, about why those people had travelled, sometimes through three continents, taken huge risks and then risked life and limb to travel the extra 20 miles from the safe havens of France and Belgium to Britain. Many theories and reasons have been offered. The Home Affairs Committee considered the matter and discussed the "pull" and "push" factors. It examined the lack of identity cards in this country as a pull factor. I accept that that was only one of many theories that were presented. However, when I asked individual police officers and immigration officers in Calais and Dover—people on the ground who meet asylum seekers when they depart and when they arrive—they put lack of identity cards and the consequent easy access to illegal working at the top of their list of pull factors.

Nick Gibb: There are many advantages to living in this country. Does the hon. Gentleman propose to abolish all of them?

Gwyn Prosser: I said that the Home Affairs Committee examined many important reasons, including access to the English language and to friends. I am focusing on the reason that, anecdotally, is strongest in my local experience.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Gwyn Prosser: Let me make some progress.
	Although most immigrants are law abiding and peaceful, a small number of asylum seekers in that part of east Kent sought fraudulent ways to make multiple claims for benefit. Some succeeded in picking up large amounts of money by making more than one application for asylum and using the false identity to double their money. That was not difficult to do at the time, because the authority to claim such benefits was simply a letter from the Home Office, which could easily be forged with a little Tippex and a photocopier. But that is just the lower end of the forgery scale. At the higher end is criminals' ability to make very passable copies of British and foreign passports and ID cards.
	Hon. Members may remember a BBC documentary film maker posing as an asylum seeker in Dover. He was put in contact with a gang in London who, at a cost, manufactured a complete set of false identity documents within a few days. To tackle that abuse, the Government introduced identity cards for all asylum seekers—that has already been mentioned—as part of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Those asylum registration cards—ARCs as they are called—are also biometric. They hold the electronic imprint of the holder's fingerprints in digital form.
	The new system was implemented speedily and without problems. As well as being highly effective in combating fraud, the new cards are welcomed by asylum seekers because they help clearly to define their status and ensure that they get speedy access to their legitimate benefits. I have heard of no instance of an ARC being successfully forged, and my experience of seeing the real benefits of this card, as well as my view that the lack of identity cards in this country was a big pull factor for economic migrants and asylum seekers, persuaded me to support and promote the introduction of secure biometric ID cards for the rest of the population.
	The creation of multiple identities is by no means limited to asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. A large proportion of criminals use false and multiple identities to defraud and to escape detection. Stolen identities are the stock-in-trade of some villains. When police tracked down the evil people smugglers who allowed 58 young Chinese to perish in the back of a container in my constituency of Dover, one of the criminals had no fewer than 51 separate identities, all supported by false documentation.
	Owing to the flow of immigrants to Dover, the volume of illegal working in Kent increased and the activities of the illicit gangmasters flourished. That is another area of criminality where the ability to define identity by the production of a secure biometric card would help to crack down on illegal working and on the people who smuggle others into Britain and profit from their human misery.
	I believe that those reasons alone are probably sufficient for the introduction of identity cards, but the massive escalation in the threat to our citizens and to our communities represented by the attack on the twin towers in 2001 has added a new dimension to the debate, as well as another important reason for ensuring that our police, our border control officers and our security services know with a degree of certainty who is in the country and who is who.
	I do not think that anyone believes that the threat that organisations such as al-Qaeda pose to our communities will diminish in the foreseeable future, and there is every probability that, with the passage of time, international terrorists will become more threatening and more sophisticated in their planning. This means that it is even more important than ever that the state knows who is in the country and has reliable population statistics, which is why I would welcome the reintroduction of embarkation controls in Britain to run alongside secure compulsory ID cards.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend has a deservedly high reputation for improving race relations in his constituency, so is he not uneasy at the proposals to phase in identity cards such that non-EU nationals living in the UK for more than three months will be the first ones to have to carry them? Might that lead to a stop-and-search culture, which would damage race relations in a way that he has been trying to combat locally for five or six years?

Gwyn Prosser: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous remarks, but the issue of the three-month delay was dealt with adequately from the Front Bench during the opening speeches.
	The critics of ID cards keep wheeling out the old chestnut that ID cards did not or would not stop any of the notorious terrorist attacks—we have heard that any number of times tonight—but that argument ignores the enormous amount of preparation involved in and the enormous number of people who prepare the ground for such attacks. It is well known that a significant proportion of those people lie dormant by hiding behind false identities. We have already heard that about 30 per cent. of terrorists use false identities to get by.
	Our security and police chiefs—the people with the awesome responsibility of protecting us from the destructive outrages of terrorists—all say that ID cards would help them in their task. The same people tell us that, although they have already successfully disrupted and prevented more than one major terrorist attack in Britain in recent months, a further attack on the capital is inevitable rather than just likely.
	So to those who argue that identity cards did not prevent 9/11 and Madrid, the security chiefs of those countries are entitled to say that although, sadly and tragically, their anti-terrorist units did not prevent the attacks, that is not to say that those units have no use or that they should never have been established in the first place.
	I know from taking soundings in my area that the vast majority of my constituents want ID cards to be introduced. We know from our consultations that about 80 per cent. of the British people want ID cards to be introduced. We know that all the security people want ID cards. We know that nearly all our European partners already have some form of ID card in place. There is a rising tide of support for these timely new measures; I am happy to add my support for this important Bill tonight.

Patsy Calton: The Government argue that identity cards and the national register will protect us from terrorists, stop benefit fraud and prevent illegal immigration—their effect will be to provide an answer to all our problems. The Conservatives appear to agree. "Appear" is the operative word: why else would so many of them, we understand, have been told to take the day off rather than reveal the extent to which they oppose identity cards?
	I am very dubious about the first claim of ID cards protecting us from terrorism. We all want our constituents to be protected from terrorist attacks, which are made more likely by this country's involvement in the war in Iraq. The Government dragged the country into that war—again, with the full backing of the official Opposition. Then, as now, it was left to the Liberal Democrats to lead the opposition in the House. However, I see no evidence that identity cards have prevented terrorist attacks in Europe. Over recent years, hardly a European state has not had its citizens murdered by terrorists, as in Madrid in the train bombings, despite Spain's citizens having been compelled for many years to have identity cards.
	The amount of taxpayers' money needed to start up this system is huge—an estimated £3 billion or more for the computer system. We should watch for the announcement that that has doubled or trebled, as the costs of so many such schemes do. Then there will be the as yet unknown ongoing costs for the army of people to maintain the system and constantly to update individuals' records as their addresses and situations change. How many more people will have to be put on the payroll to do that, and at what cost? We simply do not know.
	I have seen various initial estimates of the cost to each of us of an identity card. No one seems to know the true figure, but whatever it is, how long will it be before it rockets? How will that affect those who were not forced to register for an ID card when renewing their passport, but who are given notice that the Secretary of State requires them to register under threat of a £2,500 fine for non-registration?

Martin Linton: Has the hon. Lady not reached the page in the explanatory notes that points out that the cost will be £70 for a biometric passport and another £15 for the ID card?

Patsy Calton: I understand that no guarantees are given for that. Indeed, the cost could be a lot more.
	The dangers to civil liberties and traditional freedoms are well known and have been well rehearsed today, and they are greater when we have no confidence that what is being proposed will produce a reliable system.
	The balance between the civil liberties of the individual and the benefits to the state has been discussed several times. My constituents tell me that they are worried that the Government appear more and more authoritarian, and that this proposal is just another facet of that authoritarianism, with the Government wishing to be present at every move that people make and in every service in which they wish to take part.
	When I talk to people about large-scale Government computer projects, they laugh. They remind me of the recent chaos at the Child Support Agency because of major failures of its computer systems. I am reminded of   the even more recent computer crash at the   Department for Work and Pensions, with all the inconvenience and genuine hardship that that caused. The track record of those huge IT projects is disturbingly unreliable. This IT project will be bigger than anything so far, much more complex, and much more liable to error. I do not share the Government's confidence that identity cards cannot be forged, or the systems hacked into, by clever criminals with sufficient resources. What assurances can the Minister give that these systems cannot be tampered with? Unless he can give such assurances, an awful lot of money will be wasted.
	When our access is impeded or denied because the computers are down, or because our information has been wrongly entered, how will we feel? When our elderly neighbour or relative cannot get their pension because their details are wrong, how will that affect any enthusiasm that we might have for the idea? How long will it be before our DNA profile is added to the register?
	I want the billions proposed for this project to be put into the police, immigration and other security services: for example, more intelligence officers for MI5 and the new Serious Organised Crime Agency. Vast sums are being diverted from forces that desperately need more   resources. Only recently, chief police officers complained that they face a £350 million shortfall for fighting crime next year. A sum of £3 billion could pay for 10,000 extra police officers for the next six years.
	By this proposal, the Government show clearly that they have the money to spend. Let them spend it on effective means to keep us safe and to prevent fraud. The Conservatives often say that they want to do away with big government. Big government does not get much bigger than this.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that we are at last debating this issue, because it seems that we are being asked to accept some kind of illusion of security. We are told that there are problems in society of high levels of crime, illegal immigration, illegal working, benefit fraud and terrorism, all of which may or may not be true. Nobody from the Home Office or anywhere else, however, has managed to explain how any of those problems will be solved by the introduction of compulsory identity cards, voluntary identity cards, or voluntary identity cards that later become compulsory. Let us start to examine the arguments and how the scheme would operate, and let us think it through.
	If one wants to come into this country to create terrorist mayhem or commit major fraud, one does not come in through an airport or sea port with "Terrorist" written across one's forehead, or "Criminal" written across one's breast, and say, "I'm here to cause mayhem". What is the first thing that one does? One gets some form of credible identity—a stack of bank cards and all those bits of information that will get access to society—one dresses the part, and one gets away it. With all the technology available, and the enormous expense of computer programmes for this system, who is to say that the fraudsters will not already be ahead of the game? As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has pointed out, the fraudulent use of bank cards is already rife. Those who wish to commit fraud on bank cards are well ahead of the game and are well capable of doing it. Who is to say that there is not a possibility in the future either of fiddling forms of iris recognition or hacking into the computer and issuing multiple cards that people can use fraudulently?

Martin Linton: Will not my hon. Friend accept that bank card fraud is so easy precisely because of the lack of biometric identification? With biometrics, and identity anchored firmly to a biometric card, many of the avenues for bank fraud and fraud against public services would be closed.

Jeremy Corbyn: That is a fascinating argument, based on the comfort and love of technology, which solves all problems. If we were to take my hon. Friend's argument at face value, that would mean having a biometric reader in every branch of every bank in this country and, I presume, alongside every cash machine. I presume that somebody will staff the cash machine to check that the person is using the biometric reader. What kind of society are we heading towards if we cannot go anywhere without checking in with a biometric reader to confirm that we are who we say we are? What kind of society will such a scenario create?
	I am proud to represent a very multicultural inner-city community. It contains people who have come from all over the world, who have either migrated to this country, migrated from other parts of the United Kingdom, or sought and received asylum here. After a great deal of work over many years, relations between the local communities and the police are pretty good. There is a good working relationship. Who is to say whether, with the development of these ID cards, we will not return to all the past horrors of stop and search, the use of earlier vagrancy legislation, and the profiling of individuals to decide whether they should be stopped and searched?
	I suspect that "voluntary" cards will be introduced, and that various agencies will decide to check whether people with certain ethnic attributes have a card. We will end up with racial profiling. In relation to health care and examination, one hopes that emergency services will always deal with emergencies, but are we to assume that hospital staff will ask everyone who wants to make an appointment for a non-emergency service for their identity card, or will it just be those with a west African-sounding name, a Turkish-sounding name, a Somali-sounding name or a south Asian-sounding name? I suspect the latter. I suspect that we will end up with an unpleasant society, biometric readers in certain places, a large degree of stop and search going on as a result, and people living at the margins excluded.
	For example, we are supposed to register every time we change address—but I know of many people who lead entirely chaotic lives, who would never in a million years get round to registering a change of address, particularly when they change address every three or four weeks, or at least every three or four months. Will they be fined £1,000 every time they do not register? What will we do when they cannot or will not pay the fine, or other penalty? What kind of criminalisation will result from that?
	What about Travellers, who lead an itinerant existence? I would have thought that in a modern, democratic, tolerant society we could and should be able to accept different lifestyles. What will we do with people who refuse to, or simply cannot, register? Will we create a group living on the margins, for ever exploited as illegal workers, because their employers can get away with it and it suits society?
	The House should think very carefully before passing the Bill, if for no other reason, then for the following two reasons. First, this is not about identity cards; it is about a national identity register. That is what clause 1 says. Secondly, this is enabling legislation, which is being rushed through tonight, and will have to be out of Committee by the end of January. Presumably there will also be pressure to get it out of the House of Lords so that it will appear on the statute book quickly. It will then be law, and although the public as a whole may not understand the concepts of primary and secondary legislation, the fact is that tonight is the major opportunity that MPs will have to vote on this material, except for Report and Third Reading. After that there will be only secondary legislation, which is impossible to amend and difficult to vote against—difficult, indeed, to influence in any way.
	I ask Members to think carefully about the kind of society that we are creating with the Bill, and about what kind of society we want to live in. The Bill will not solve crime, fraud or terrorism; it represents the comfort zone of the high-technology security industry, which will be easily hacked into. A much better form of security is protection of the individual and respect for that individual's liberties, independence and right to justice. That, rather than going down the road of examination, interference and control, will lead to a fairer, more just and more co-operative society.

Peter Lilley: I shall join the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) in the Lobby tonight to vote against a bad idea in a worse Bill, introduced for the worst possible motives. This idea has always been a solution looking for problems. When the Government were under attack for waste in the public services, they said that this would be an entitlement Bill, frankly admitting that it would have little role to play in combating terrorism. When they were under attack for their failure to control immigration, they said that the Bill's prime purpose would be to control illegal immigration. When the focus groups told them that they were lagging behind the Conservatives on crime, they said that the primary issue was to control crime. Now, because they want to frighten us with the threat of terrorism ahead of the election, they have again raised the issue of controlling terrorism.
	The Bill is a solution looking for problems, and when we examine the problems, it turns out to be a pretty illusory solution to them. The police rarely have a problem in identifying suspects, only in proving that they did what they are suspected of. Terrorists rarely conceal their identity, only their motives. Benefit fraudsters rarely adopt a false identity, they merely misrepresent their circumstances. All illegal immigrants can, and most do, claim asylum. They are then automatically given an identity card without which they cannot claim benefits, and such cards already show their fingerprints and their photo.
	The Government have managed to come up with some helpful comments from Departments suggesting general support for the scheme, and saying that it might be beneficial to them. It is always possible to get civil servants to say that sort of thing; their job is to support the Government. It was not too difficult to persuade the security services to come up with evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
	Departments are saying that the Bill would be useful to them—but the acid test of whether a Department really thinks that a proposal will be useful to it is to ask whether it is prepared to contribute a slice of its budget towards the costs. My first question to Ministers is: has any Department indicated a willingness to contribute to the costs of the scheme?
	We know that the scheme originally proposed, for a voluntary card, was going to cost £1 billion. When that became an entitlement card, the cost went up to £3 billion. When the first draft Bill appeared, the scheme was going to cost £4 billion. Now it is supposed to cost about £5 billion. I know of no experience that does not suggest, and no outside expert who does not expect, that the eventual cost will be at least twice what the Government now say.
	The Government say that a card will cost £85 a head, and that the cost will be borne not by Departments but by individuals. Everybody will have to pay that sum, even the 20 per cent. who never travel abroad and cannot afford a car. I ask the Minister: if the cost is double the present estimate, are we going to charge double that amount—a sum greater than the poll tax—to every inhabitant of this country, simply to prove their existence and justify their presence here?
	The problem is that the system almost certainly will not work. We have heard about the difficulties of getting IT systems to work, but what about the biometrics on which this system is intended to rely, which have never been tried out on any scale? Indeed, the Government's own small-scale pilot trials had to be postponed because, as the Passport and Records Agency says,
	"a series of hardware, software and ergonomic problems"
	caused delays. It continues:
	"Remedial actions to cure these problems continued for several weeks when, after further tests, the system was given back to the suppliers for further development and reconfiguration".
	If these problems occurred during a small-scale trial, what possibility is there that the Government can get the system to work for 60 million people? A Cabinet Office study concluded that biometric tests will wrongly conclude that between 10 and 15 per cent. of those tested are not who they actually are. Are the Government really happy with that level of misidentification?
	My next question for the Government is: why has no bank, supermarket or credit card company introduced this technology? Could it be that they believe the costs too great, the benefits too small and the danger of alienating their customers too high to risk undertaking a project of this nature? But the arguments against ID cards are not just practical. They would increase the power of the state and change the relationship between it and the individual. Does it not give Labour Members some pause for thought that compulsory ID cards have never been introduced in peacetime in any country other than a fascist, communist or totalitarian state? They were introduced by those countries precisely to increase their Governments' power to control their citizens. I am not accusing Ministers of sharing the malign nature of those states—at least, I do not think that I am—but they are creating an apparatus that could be misused. Does it not give Ministers pause for thought that no common law country has ever introduced such a system, and that those that started to do so—such as Australia and New Zealand—were persuaded by the reaction of their populations to back off and withdraw the proposal?
	A number of Members have made it clear—I share their view—that the system will serve practically no purpose unless carrying the card, as well as having it, is made compulsory. Ministers say that that can be done only through further primary legislation. Given that this Government introduce three or four police Bills every year, the fact that such an initiative would require further primary legislation will be precious little defence once the apparatus is in place. We may take it for granted that once the system is in place, it will be compulsory to carry the card and to present it when required. Indeed, most of the services and most of the public think that carrying such a card ought to be compulsory. So every time that we leave home without it, we will be liable to a penalty. Even under this Bill, every time that we fail to notify the authorities of a change of address, we will be liable to a penalty of up to £1,000. Every time that we fail to report a lost or stolen card, we will not only be unable, so they say, to access all the services; we will also be liable to a penalty.
	This project will cost huge sums and it may not work. It will damage our liberties, and I hope that this House rejects it.

Janet Dean: Twenty years ago, and perhaps even 10 years ago, many of us may have held strong views against the idea of identity cards. However, we have become used to carrying a range of cards in our purses and wallets. As other hon. Members have said, we can be tracked around the country through our bank cards and, if anyone were sufficiently interested, they could discover from where we draw cash, where we choose to eat and how much we spend at the local supermarket. Indeed, loyalty cards can tell the supermarkets all that there is to know about our shopping habits, as well as whether we have a cat or dog, or even a baby. We have also grown accustomed to CCTV in our high streets and shops, to the point where most of us hardly ever think about the cameras. In recent years, the threat of terrorism and crimes associated with identity fraud has increased the need for security—both for the nation and for the individual citizen.
	I recognise that there are those who hold very strong views against the development of ID cards. They oppose them in principle and nothing is likely to change their minds. What I can say is that, in my constituency, a survey that I have just conducted shows an overwhelming majority of the general public in favour of the introduction of identity cards.
	I sent a questionnaire to about half the households in my Burton constituency and the rate of return is already about 20 per cent. with further replies being received daily. I have yet to complete a final analysis of the results, but a random sample shows that support for a card, and for it being compulsory, is 83 per cent. with 12 per cent. against both the card and compulsion. About 3 per cent. believe that we should have an ID card, but that it should not be compulsory, and 2 per cent. are neither for nor against.

Simon Thomas: Did the hon. Lady ask her constituents what price they would be prepared to pay for an ID card? In a much quoted survey that we have heard about this afternoon, 80 per cent. of the UK population as a whole support the ID card proposals, but when asked whether they would be prepared to pay £35 for the card, only 20 per cent. of people said that they would. What sum did the hon. Lady ask her constituents to pay for the card and how much were they prepared to pay for it?

Janet Dean: I was just about to come to that point. Some of my constituents are indeed concerned about the cost of the card to individuals, especially regarding the price that will be charged to the least well off in society, such as pensioners, who might not have any wish or need to purchase a passport. In that respect, I am pleased that the Government have already made a commitment to issuing cards at a reduced fee for vulnerable groups such as those on low incomes and to looking further into arrangements for the elderly, including consideration of some non-biometric cards for those who are frail and cannot be expected to have biometric measurements taken.
	Although there is widespread acceptance of the principle of ID cards, the introduction of a system will bring benefits only if we can be sure that the national identity register is secure, with up-to-date information and accurate biometric identity markers. The report of the Home Affairs Committee states:
	"We believe there is a danger that in many day-to-day situations the presentation alone of an identity card will be assumed to prove the identity of the holder without the card itself or the biometrics being checked, thus making possession of a stolen or forged identity card an easier way to carry out identity fraud than is currently the case. The availability of readers of cards and biometrics, including to the private sector, is therefore a crucial factor."
	I know from the Government response to that Select Committee report that some Departments have begun to assess their need for identity card readers. It would seem that there is still much work to be done to establish the true requirements of both the public and the private sector.
	We should recognise that the Government's proposals for identity cards go much further than those in other countries, but also that we do not have a history of requiring as strict a registration system as many other countries do. Sweden has had a personal number system from birth for many years, but we found when we met people there that the country is yet to decide whether to have biometric measurements. The Swedish cards will be mainly for travel within Europe. In Germany, people are used to having to notify the authorities immediately of any change of address, yet the country has not gone as far with identity cards as we are proposing.
	I believe that a system that does not involve biometrics would not be worth introducing. The use of biometrics should enable us to have a secure system, but to ensure that, it is vital to use accurate technology, to protect the system when data are inputted and to check the information rigorously. Providing the system is secure, it should not be possible for people to register more than once.
	One of the concerns of the Home Affairs Committee was that we should avoid so-called function creep. For example, the development of the national identity register could establish a national fingerprint register, posing the question whether it should be used for solving crime as well as proving identity. We thought it highly likely that there would be public pressure for the information to be used to detect offenders, especially in the case of serious crime. The Home Affairs Committee report also stated that the benefits must not be entirely, or even predominantly, to the state. I am glad that the Government recognised that in their response.
	Combating identity fraud will protect the individual as well as tackling crime. It will be useful for young people to be able to identify themselves when making age-related purchases. It will also be helpful if individuals no longer have to notify many different Departments of a change of address.
	As long as the Government proceed with care, there is everything to be gained from having ID cards for the security of the country and the safety and protection of individual members of our society.

David Curry: I am not a member of the libertarian right. Rather, I am what I suppose the Home Secretary would describe as a liberal, although to set one's face against authoritarian measures undertaken in the name of the public interest perhaps requires a tough liberalism, and I would describe myself as a tough rather than a soggy liberal.
	Tonight, however, I make common cause with those who might more comfortably think of themselves as members of the libertarian right, because I believe that the Bill is a step too far, and I shall be in the Lobby against it. In any democracy, there is an implicit contract between the citizen and the state about the way in which freedom is to be exercised. Some freedom is exercised individually. I choose to exercise it individually because I believe that that is what is best both for myself and for the wider society. Some freedom I choose to be vested in a collective will because I believe that that is better for the broader community and, ultimately, in my interest as well.
	There is not a frozen formula: political treatises have been written in every century about where the balance lies between the authority of the state and the authority of the individual. It is undoubtedly true that 9/11 seems to have changed the balance, both in psychological and in political terms, but that does not mean that the question does not have to be asked. We ought constantly to question whether those measures that have been taken by the state, no doubt in good will and out of a spirit of paternalism rather than one of authoritarianism, are necessary.
	I have come to the conclusion that we are seeing an encroachment of paternalism, invading the space occupied by liberalism and the role of the individual. Under this Government, in particular, the power of the intrusion of the state has increased and is increasing, and it ought to be halted. Under Labour, ironically, we have seen a sort of creeping Bonapartism in government. I am a well-known Francophile—it is one of the problems I have. I would not start from the assumption that French practices are wrong, but I find it ironic that, over the past decade or so, Bonapartism has, at last, been on the retreat in France, just when it has been on the increase in the United Kingdom. I do not wish to be counted one of les administrés, identifying myself as a subject of the state and being given my identity in terms of what the state endows me with.
	I do not believe in the analogies that people have drawn with bank cards, supermarket cards and even national insurance numbers. Those are specific, limited and often voluntary things. The accumulation of information and power in one instrument is materially and substantively different from the dispersal of powers through separate instruments.
	The Home Secretary says that we will not have to carry the card and the police will not be able to ask to see it. That makes me wonder why it will exist at all. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) explained, we have seen a curious accumulation of the purposes of the Bill, and if one of the card's purposes is to combat terrorism, it is difficult to explain why it should be treated rather like my driving licence. With that, if I commit an offence, I can produce the licence at a police station of my choice within, I think, seven days. By that time, if I had terrorist intent, I doubt whether I would choose to present my card to my local police station in Skipton or Ripon at the appointed hour.
	The trouble is that the Government are proceeding, in this as in so many things, by assertion, not by explanation or persuasion. I am always concerned about how things work in practice and I believe that this Bill will end up in a compulsory scheme. People will have to have an obligation to carry the cards or I cannot see the point of it.
	I remember that, when I was the correspondent for the Financial Times in Paris, I used to see the police waiting outside the metro stations. They did not stop the whites, but those with a Maghreb complexion—those from north Africa. If one were white, one could have paraded through Paris wearing a bathing costume in the middle of winter and nobody would have taken any interest. The Bill, therefore, poses more than one problem with regard to the ethnic minority communities in Britain. It is a problem if the police decide to focus on members of the ethnic minority community, but it is equally a problem if the police take a softly, softly approach. In that case, other members of the community complain, as those of us who canvassed in recent by-elections have noted. People object when they think that the police are less rigorous in their approach to certain matters of ordinary law enforcement in ethnic minority areas than in other areas, because they do not wish to disturb community relationships or community equilibrium. In either case, it is a problem.
	My fundamental problem is that the Bill is an empty vessel into which the Home Secretary can pour powers. The procedures for secondary legislation in this Parliament, which have been used by all Governments, amount—for all intents and purposes—to government by decree. If we are to have a commissioner, he should be analogous to the National Audit Office and answerable to this House to give us some measure of reassurance.
	Another problem is the technical aspect and whether the proposals will work. Cost is another issue, and I was astonished that the Home Secretary in a long speech—admittedly, he took many interventions—did not mention the word. If there are reasons to vote against the Bill, that is one of them. He uttered not a single phrase related to the cost of the project. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is seeking to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, and he will know that the Government's record on the escalation of costs of public contracts, especially in IT, is catastrophic. That money could be spent elsewhere to buy a great deal of security and common or garden policing. It could even be spent to keep some of the police stations in my constituency open for 24 hours, rather than office hours as they are at present, which causes considerable resentment among ordinary people.
	The timetable is monstrous. Is this a serious attempt to produce legislation or is it to provide an item for an election manifesto? To propose determining something as complex as this Bill in a matter of three weeks is an insult to the House. The implications are enormous and we know from experience that scrutiny is poor in such circumstances. That is why the House of Lords is so necessary, although no doubt that will change, if this Government are returned.
	Finally, I say to my Front-Bench colleagues that we do not need to compete with Labour. We stand for individual liberty and a free and open society, in which there is a price for responsibility. We should have small government and big people. This Bill makes the Government too big and me too small.

Neil Gerrard: I oppose the Bill. I am sorry that the amendment that I tabled was not selected, but as it was not, I shall support the amendment moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), which is similar in intent.
	I have three reasons for opposing the Bill. First, I do not believe that it will do what is claimed. It certainly will not deliver benefits proportional to the cost. Whatever benefits it may deliver, they should be proportional to the cost of implementing it. Secondly, I have concerns about the technology and, thirdly, about the impact on personal privacy. It is incumbent on those who support the Bill to justify its cost, especially in comparison with the benefits of spending the money on other ways of dealing with some of the problems.
	I do not want to labour points that have already been made about some of the claims that have been made, such as those on terrorism or crime. However, I have never found that the police say that one of their major problems in dealing with crime is identifying people. The problem is producing evidence to connect the person whom they have identified with the crime. Furthermore, illegal working takes two: the employer and the employee. Employers who knowingly employ people who are in the country illegally and do not bother to make the checks that they are supposed to make about whether the person is entitled to work in the UK will be no more likely to carry out a check if the form it takes is an ID card.
	As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, although the main arguments about ID cards change from time to time, in the end they all depend on compulsion to have a card. Without compulsion, none of the benefits could be obtained.
	A massive database is proposed and a massive infrastructure will be necessary, because there is no point in having cards that include biometrics without the infrastructure, including readers in a huge variety of places, to read and check them. A large number of people will have access to the database.
	To some degree, we are being mesmerised by technology; we think that technology is perfect. It will not be perfect. There will be false positives and false negatives from the readers and their rate will depend very much on how the readers are set up and the algorithms used to compare images from them. People will attempt to break into the database and they will probably be successful. The prize will be huge: the information in the database will make breaking into it extremely tempting.
	We have not paid much attention to a further point about the database, although the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) raised it earlier. The database will not appear from thin air, but will need to be created. How will it be set up? If the data that are input are not wholly accurate and not verified perfectly, the database will be fundamentally flawed from day one. I have heard nothing from the Government about how that verification will actually happen. It seems inevitable that it must be based on people's existing documents and evidence about themselves, so if a person already has a false identity, or ensures that they acquire one before they register, it will be transferred to the database. A person may also have other identities in countries that are not linked to the database.
	It is inevitable that there will be human error when inputting data. Records will get mixed up and one person's biometrics will be attached to someone else's record. That has already happened in databases that contain biometrics, with devastating consequences for some of the people whose data have been mixed up. Like other Members, I have dealt with constituents affected by false information from criminal record checks, including, recently, someone who lost his job for that reason.

Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the more complex the information, the more likely there is to be confusion? For example, at the Child Support Agency names and addresses have been mixed up, causing chaos. Those are simple things. Will it not be much worse with biometric information?

Neil Gerrard: That is absolutely true. Millions of entries will go on to the database each year as it is created, so the potential for error will be enormous.
	Let me turn to privacy and the relationship between the individual and the state that the database will give rise to. Once a database of this nature has been created—the Bill contains powers for the Secretary of State to add more information to the database by order—it is absolutely inevitable that there will be function creep. There is no question about that. The Home Secretary more or less admitted earlier in the debate today that compulsion will be necessary. Without compulsion, the people who will not be on the database will be exactly the sort of the people whom the Home Office and Ministers say that they want to keep track of using the database. Being on the database and having an ID card must be compulsory; otherwise the whole structure will fail apart. Of course, the people who will be last to register will be those who want to keep their names off it, plus people who are elderly or infirm and so on.
	Who will have access to the database? We know from the debate and the regulatory impact assessment that banks and retailers, not just Departments, may have access to it. The Home Secretary even suggested that someone might check the database when people rent a video. Every time that someone's details are checked on the database—perhaps for a financial transaction, travel or whatever—all that information will be recorded. There will be an audit trail of every piece of information, every time that the database is accessed to check someone's particulars. I do not believe that the state should be collecting that sort of information about individuals.
	If I choose to have a Sainsbury's loyalty card and the company collects information about me and sends a Christmas card to my cat, or something like that, I am not really worried about it. It is my choice to have that card, and I know what the consequences are. I do not believe that the state should collect such information.
	If people start to realise what is implied and to think about the possible uses of those audit trails and the information that is held on the database, I believe that public opinion will change very rapidly. At the moment, a lot of people say, "Oh well, if I've done nothing wrong, I've got nothing to worry about." That is the wrong answer to the wrong question. People need to ask themselves what benefits will accrue from this vast expenditure. The one saving grace is that this will turn into a hugely expensive fiasco.

Michael Mates: Those on the Conservative Front Bench might be relieved to know that I am in favour of the principle of an identity card system. I shall vote with the Government tonight, but I understand and respect the principles of those of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members on both sides of the House who take the opposite view. I must add that, although I am in favour of the principle, the way in which the Government are acting and some of the measures that they propose to take are absolutely unacceptable.
	Comments on those measures have been repeated around the House. I will not bore the House by saying it all again, except to say that they were most forcefully and persuasively articulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). The way in which the issues of the commissioner, the Joint Committee and, above all, the timetable have been handled is an absolute insult to the House of Commons on a Bill that is, whatever one's view, as important as this, given the consequences that it will have for our people.
	I have been consistent in my support for identity cards almost as long as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). In fact, the House may be surprised to know that, on 28 November 1974, I made my maiden speech on this subject, just after the Guildford and Birmingham bombings. We were taking the Prevention of Terrorism Act through the House for the first time. I said then that I thought that such a system would help in the fight against terrorism and crime, and I still believe that. The Home Secretary of the day, Roy Jenkins, said that the suggestion was interesting, but that although identity cards might be helpful, they would be eminently forgeable. That was probably the case then, but technology has moved on over the past 30 years and we now have the chance to introduce a secure system with cards that would be more difficult to forge or replicate.
	I discussed the subject yesterday evening with a friend who is over here from the United States. He showed me his New Jersey driving licence, which is an amazingly high-tech piece of plastic. It tells the police who he is and includes his photograph and a hologram. To respond to what several hon. Members have said, an identity card system is not necessary in the United States because such cards exist.
	The Government are right not to make the scheme compulsory. People say that we are on a slippery slope, but I do not think that the scheme will ever be made compulsory because that would make martyrs. People would refuse cards on principle and there would be chaos. We need to prove that identity cards are so useful that everyone will want to carry them, which is the state of affairs in the United States. No one in the United States leaves their house without a form of identification. That is normally their driving licence, but it can be their health card. They always have adequate means to persuade people of who they are.

Damian Green: Surely the group of people for whom identity cards will not be useful, and who will thus not volunteer to carry them, will be terrorists and criminals. The effectiveness of the scheme will be markedly, if not completely, reduced if it remains voluntary.

Michael Mates: That will not be the case if it becomes such a habit for people to carry cards to show who they are that those without them are the odd ones out. As in the United States, if we have nothing to fear, I believe that we will all carry the cards in time, which seems to be a good way of going about things.
	It is, however, outrageous that the Government will make us pay for the cards if they demand that we possess them. Citizens should not be charged for something that it is compulsory to possess. I know that there are huge costs involved—it is another matter when the cards are tied up to passports—but an ordinary person who does not need a passport yet must possess an identity card should not be made to pay for it.
	As many hon. Members have said, a job must be done to persuade people of the benefits that the cards can bring them. To that end, I repeat a plea that I made all those years ago. If any citizen who is to have an identity card wants additional information to be included on it, that should be allowed. We have the technology to achieve that. Some people might think it important to have their blood group detailed on the cards, and some might want the fact that they wish to donate their organs if they are killed in an accident to be included. Other people might want their allergies or other conditions to appear on their cards so that if they are involved in an accident or caught short in extremis, someone can read such useful information.

Nick Gibb: Has not my right hon. Friend given an example of function creep? In due course there will be pressure to include such medical information on the cards, although the Government currently assure us that that will not be included.

Michael Mates: My hon. Friend misunderstands me. I am not advocating that the Government should say that such information should appear on a card, but that individuals should be allowed to choose whether information should be included to show that they are asthmatic, epileptic or of a rare blood group. That is quite different from function creep. It would give added benefits to people who may think that that would be helpful. Such people usually carry such information on another card, a chain or something around their neck. If we introduce an identity card system that gives all information required and citizens want more information to be included, that should be allowed. Some people may want their religion to be detailed because they would want the last rites to be given, but that should be a person's individual choice, not the diktat of the Government.

John Bercow: Surely we should proceed on the basis of the existing evidence. Given that my right hon. Friend genuinely believes that benefits would accrue from the introduction of identity cards, does he not find it extraordinary that there is no evidence that can be cited—or has been this evening—that countries with identity card systems have lower crime rates than those without them?

Michael Mates: I do not believe that it is a question of crime rates. It is, I think, a question of how useful the scheme is to authorities trying to battle the problems that we are discussing. I will give my hon. Friend some evidence—well, it is not exactly evidence. It is what the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland told me during a conversation that I had with him. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said, photographic driving licences were introduced in Northern Ireland in the 1980s. The Chief Constable said "It is the most helpful thing that has happened to me in terms of my ability to find out who people are when they are stopped for doing whatever they have been doing." As the incidence of car crime is far higher in Northern Ireland than it is anywhere else, that is evidence that being able to identify people is enormously helpful. I am not suggesting that it is conclusive, and my hon. Friend clearly takes a different view; but where such schemes have been introduced they have helped, although they may not be a universal panacea.

Robert Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the additional information that someone might choose to put on a card. Surely the functionality of that would be very limited unless the institutions involved were aware that the cards would carry the information, and also had machines that could decode it.

Michael Mates: Such information would have to be visible. Information about a person's blood group— O, B or whatever—could be visible to the naked eye. Such information would not have to be hidden away in some high-tech piece of plastic. [Interruption.] It would be perfectly possible to make the information visible, but the hon. Gentleman obviously has his own point of view.
	On balance, this is a good thing to do. It is, alas, a necessary thing to do, because of the different world in which we now live. I hope, however, that the Government are listening to the real objections enunciated throughout the House about the way in which they are introducing the scheme, so that it can be introduced with as much consensus as possible.

John Robertson: Much of what I wanted to say has already been said, but I have been taking notes, and I may be able to shed some light on the comments of others.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made great play of what would happen in the event of corrupt information or input errors. In effect, he said "Don't do it: there should not be any kind of ID card." If we followed his argument to its logical conclusion, however, we would not do anything about anything.

John Barrett: Surely it is not a question of not doing anything; it is a question of using the expected £3 billion cost of the scheme more effectively by improving security services and policing, for instance.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that someone can be picked up from the street and put on the beat tomorrow. That is not going to happen. The Government have brought the country to a point at which unemployment is at its lowest for 30 years, and we have almost full employment. Now the hon. Gentleman wants to put 10,000 or 20,000 policemen on the beat tomorrow. He must get real, and start to come down to planet earth from wherever he is at the moment.
	The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) made a great case about how my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had said that the ID card would be the panacea for all ills, but not only did she misquote him, she deliberately misinterpreted what my right hon. Friend said. He was trying to say that ID cards will help, and that anything that can help to solve security problems or the problem of people with a lack of identity will go a long way to making people feel a lot safer.
	We had a similar debate years ago on CCTV. It was said that that would be an infringement of people's rights and that people would be spied upon while walking down the street. Now we are hearing the same arguments about ID cards. A year ago I took part in a radio discussion on CCTV, during which people demanded CCTV for their communities, and people will be demanding ID cards as well.

Andrew Bennett: Could my hon. Friend, with his enthusiasm for CCTV, just remind us how often we hear that, when a particular crime has been committed, the CCTV was not working?

John Robertson: My hon. Friend obviously has more information than I do on such matters. I can talk only of Glasgow whose city centre is the safest place to go on a Friday or Saturday night. Could that be because people feel that it is safe to walk about there? That is a city that was once known as "No mean city". One can now walk about safely and enjoy a night's revelling, or whatever else one might want to do.

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about CCTV being very effective in reducing crime in city centres, but one of the problems that I have in my constituency is that there is not enough money to put CCTV in some of the other towns, such as Teignmouth and Dawlish. Would this £3 billion not be better spent on expanding the CCTV scheme?

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, with which I am inclined to have sympathy. But if we are considering the general good of the nation, not just England as the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman did earlier, and what will make people feel secure, ID cards will go a long way to doing that.
	Great play has been made of the fact that having an ID card will not stop a terrorist, and that is a fair point. But there are people who committed terrorist acts in Spain who will not be able to do so again, because, thanks to ID cards, they are now in prison there. If that is the case, and we are under increasing threat here, what is the problem with ID cards?
	I took part in a radio discussion on ID cards with the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), and a lady from the west of Scotland asked what was the problem with them. The compère started to tell her about their infringement of her rights, and that they would carry a lot of information about her, some of which she might not want others to know. She replied that she had a bus pass in her hand with her picture and name on, so those issuing the pass knew all about her, and they also knew when she took the bus because the pass told them so.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) were worried about the state knowing too much about them, but if my hon. Friend completes a form to obtain a loyalty card or a credit card, he will find that he will start to receive unsolicited e-mails because the information that he has provided will have been shared with others. There is more known about us than we think, and I would much rather the state had that information and was working for me instead of against me.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Robertson: I have given way enough.
	ID cards will help to tackle illegal working. Abuse of the immigration system is something that colleagues who encounter many asylum seekers, as I do, will know about. Glasgow is the only city in Scotland that hosts asylum seekers, so we know quite a bit about them up our way. While I try to help every single asylum seeker who comes to my surgery—I can assure the House that I see quite a lot of them—I can tell which ones are trying to pull the wool over my eyes. An ID card from wherever they entered the European Union might not be a bad thing. Indeed, when the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 was introduced, some of us talked about having to introduce tests whose results could be included on cards when people enter a country.
	I hope that the whole of Europe will take on what we are going to start to do here today, and in a big way. I hope that we will show the way to other countries. In that way, there will be a proper ID system. Not taking such action just because somebody else does not take it, however, is not the answer. It has to start somewhere, so why should it not start in this country? Why should we not protect our people to the best of our ability?
	I do not think that that should depend on the money, although I still have my fears as a champion of my pensioners, of whom I represent more than my fair share—about 18,000 in an electorate of 52,000. These people cannot afford to pay £84 for a card. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he was willing to listen, and my plea to him is that he should ensure that pensioners do not pay that sort of money.
	I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I have some sympathy with what has been said by some Opposition Members about the amount of time that is being given to the Bill. Will he take a look at the Committee stage and feel free to increase the time by as much as he wants?
	I hope that the House will support identity cards.

Simon Thomas: My Plaid Cymru and Scottish National party colleagues and I will be voting against the Bill tonight and for the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I look forward to joining him in the Lobby, as this is an important opportunity for us to voice our deep discontent with the Bill. It is also an opportunity for all parts of the House to express their concern, as the interesting thing about the debate is that there is a sense in all parties of a Government who are over-reaching themselves and taking too much power away from the citizen. I think that we can join together on a United Kingdom basis in opposing that.
	We have heard a lot today about identity fraud. We have certainly seen it from the two Front Benches, as the Government have taken it upon themselves fraudulently to identify themselves as the party of civil liberties, and they have used doublespeak throughout the debate to try to persuade us that taking more powers to the Government is somehow enriching us as individual members of society. I am afraid that Conservative Front Benchers have tried to defraud us that they are in opposition with regard to this matter. Surely, it is the job of an Opposition to test the Government and never to trust them. We should never trust the Government when they say that they are trying to achieve something, because we always have to watch what framework they are seeking to build.
	The Bill may be a small step, but as has been pointed out, it is an empty vessel into which any future Government can pour any type of legislation that they wish and any type of additional control and restraint of the population. Let us ask ourselves what would happen if ID cards were already in place and were, say, 10 years old in this country. Do we seriously think that there would not be pressure for those cards to include everyone who is on the sex offenders register, who has a criminal record or who has been bankrupt? Perhaps the cards would include blood group, HIV status, insurance status—I have been refused insurance several times in the past—or failure to pay the television licence fee.   If one appeared on television and criticised the Government, perhaps that would feature on the card. Who knows? We do not know what Governments will seek to do when they have the ability to do it. Governments always take the maximum amount of power for themselves. The job of citizens is to fight for the individual rights of citizens, and the job of Members of Parliament is to fight for the individual rights of citizens, too.

John Mann: What is wrong with identifying convicted paedophiles on a national database? Who should have greater rights: a convicted paedophile or a potential innocent victim of that paedophile?

Simon Thomas: That is a good point, because convicted paedophiles are already on a national database and are already known to the police. The question is: who has access to that information? What if somebody walks into their local post office or Blockbuster and puts their card into the reader, which states that they are a convicted paedophile? What will happen to that man when he walks out of Blockbuster? [Interruption.] Will he be a safe man on the street? [Interruption.] That would mean more crime, not less crime.

John Bercow: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman will probably recall that the biscuit was taken by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), when he asserted in November 2003 that ID cards would enhance our sense of identity and feeling of belonging. In my constituency, there are many sources of alienation, but I have yet to meet a single constituent who says, "I feel alienated from the community, and I don't know who I am because I haven't got an identity card."

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is right.
	I oppose ID cards on principle, but I also oppose them on practical grounds. We have heard a lot of practical reasons why we should oppose ID cards, but let us be clear about the principle. In a democracy, privilege is balanced with responsibility, and that is especially true in a democracy that does not have a written constitution and that is based on the rule of law and common law—what we say here goes. It is a privilege to drive a car, but it is a responsibility to pass a test, get a licence, and tax and insure the car. That is the balance between responsibility and privilege, and the Bill tips that balance and turns the citizen into a cipher.
	Worse than that, the Bill also turns the citizen into an address, because you cannot be a citizen unless you have an address. If you do not have the wherewithal to be on the database, you do not exist. That is a strange and curious measure if we are trying to be a free country. It is strange that Welsh and Scottish nationalists are speaking up for the rights of free-thinking and free-living Englishmen, but while we are needed, we will certainly do it.

Richard Allan: Did the hon. Gentleman notice this startling phrase in the regulatory impact assessment:
	"the old assumption that if you are here you are probably here legally is no longer acceptable",
	in the context of public services? In other words, the burden of proof has reversed, so you must prove that you are a citizen rather than the state having to prove that your claim is dodgy.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I want to discuss that point. What about the idea that ID cards entitle us to something that we pay for and that we vote Governments in to run in the first place? We entitle Governments; Governments do not entitle us. ID cards fundamentally reverse that approach to democracy and government. Every MP should oppose ID cards on that basis.
	The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam knows that the real issue is not ID cards, but the running of, and trust that we can place in, the national database. We have heard a lot about identity fraud, but we have not heard about the deliberate misuse of the database. For example, animal rights terrorists have used the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database to access the names and addresses of people who are involved in animal research. That information has been passed to terrorists in order to target those individuals. When there are 60 million records—the figure will increase, because the dead will remain on the database, as the Bill does not mention their being struck off—what happens if those records are deliberately misused by those who have accessed the information for their own pernicious ends? That might include the Government or it might include individuals—I am not sure which is worse.
	If we examine the Bill in terms of entitlement to things that we take for granted and which either the Government run for us or we have joined together in commonality as a society to run for ourselves, that is an entitlement for all. It is a fundamental tenet of civilisation to extend to everyone the entitlement that we seek and take for granted. If the occasional asylum seeker has a denture repaired as a result, that is a price that I am prepared to pay if the alternative is a system of control and regulation that I find fundamentally unacceptable.

Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Thomas: I am afraid that I cannot, because I have only three minutes left. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but we have had this debate before.
	We are told that this is the answer to the international terrorist threat. There is something strange about that. We know from what the Government say that the scheme can really work only when it is compulsory throughout. We also know from what we have heard here today that it will not be compulsory throughout until 2012 or 2015. If the terrorist threat now, post-9/11, is the reason for the ID card system, but it will not work for another 10 years, that is a recipe for continuing to face the same terrorist threat. That shows the Government's lack of imagination and lack of willingness to find other ways of tackling the threat that we undoubtedly face, but in a way that does not fundamentally undermine the basic tenets of existence in this society.
	I want to end with a story about what happened to me shortly after 11 September when I went into my local bank and tried to open a new bank account. I was greeted by the cashier, who knew me and said, "Shwd mae, Mr. Thomas? Dewch i mewn. Eisteddwch i lawr"—"How are you? Come in. Nice to see you again." I said, "I'd like to open a new account." They said, "That's very good. Have you got proof of identity?" I said, "Well, you know who I am, but if you need it I've got my parliamentary pass card." I was told that that was not good enough, so I had to go back to the bank next day and wave what I was asked for as proof of identity.
	One might say that that shows that the system is working. The Government's answer to the problem of identity is another technological fix on top of that system because it is not good enough. My answer would be intelligence. If one knows that somebody is who they say they are, that is fine, but how does one check? The answer is not to take it as read simply because somebody can fix the system to prove that they are who they say they are, which is the basic problem with fraud, but to use intelligence to examine it. It may be that the £6 billion could be better spent on extra police, extra training and extra security services; even phone-tapping may be necessary—who knows? All those are preferable to an automatic and universal system of compulsory ID cards.
	I urge the Government, and all hon. Members, to pull back and rethink this, because we are about to throw out one of the central safeguards of our democracy, and we are doing it without getting anything back from the Government in terms of protecting people's rights.

Marsha Singh: I do not have much time, but I start by saying that Labour Members do not need Welsh nationalists to defend English liberties—we can defend them for ourselves.
	There are two issues here—principle and practicalities. In principle, I support identity cards, but in the context that they must eventually be compulsory. If they are not compulsory, they will not work. I have not been impressed by the arguments of those who are opposed to identity cards, because they would oppose them even if the system was cheap and was going to work perfectly. In many cases, they have confused principle and practicalities.
	Some Members have mentioned ethnic minorities. It does not help community relations, when there is great support for identity cards in the country, to say, "We didn't support the identity card legislation because it might have upset the sensitivities of ethnic minorities." Many people in ethnic minority communities are as happy with identity cards as the general population. In many situations, whether it is right or wrong that the situation occurred, an identity card might help to solve a misunderstanding and to stop the problem before it goes any further.
	On civil liberties—although I did not hear many   arguments about the subject—given that many democratic countries, especially in Europe, have identity cards, are we claiming that their standards of civil liberties are worse than ours? [Hon. Members: "Yes, they are."] They are not. I have never heard any hon. Member complain about the standard of civil liberties in our European partner countries that have ID cards.
	I could go through a long list of subjects that the Select Committee considered in the context of Government aims on ID cards, but if one issue clinches it for me, it is identity fraud. On 21 November 2004, the Evening Standard ran a story that was headlined. "Identity Fraudsters Swamp Capital". The story stated:
	"An explosion in identity fraud has hit one in five Londoners, a survey found . . . Experts said the more serious cases, where entire identities are cloned, had jumped six-fold in four years".
	On 25 November, the Evening Standard included a story headlined, "Conman Stole Dead Child's Identity".

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Marsha Singh: I have not got time.
	It transpired that the fraudster had used the birth certificate of a four-year-old child, who died in the 1960s, to obtain a national insurance number and driving licence to gain thousands of pounds in loans and credit cards.
	On 9 December, another story appeared in the Evening Standard, headed, "London is Biggest Target for ID Thieves". It stated:
	"Londoners are being ruthlessly targeted by gangs behind Britain's identity fraud crime wave . . . Around a quarter of the 120,000 people who fall victim to ID crime each year live in and around the capital".
	Only today, I received information from CIFAS, the organisation that calls itself the UK's fraud prevention service. It states that there were
	"900,000 fraud records from our 240 Member companies encompassing banking, credit cards, asset finance, retail credit,   mail order, insurance, investment management, telecommunications, factoring, and share dealing."
	Fraud occurred because identities were stolen from dead people. The figures are serious. We must either take the issue seriously by embracing ID cards or simply ignore the crime wave.
	I must ask the Minister a few questions about practicalities. If we need ID cards, surely they should be   compulsory. How satisfied is my hon. Friend that they will be fraud proof? Can he satisfy the House about   that? How satisfied is he that the database will be tamper proof? Given recent embarrassments with new technology, how satisfied is he that he will not be left with egg on his face? Can we afford the system? How can we be satisfied that costs will not spiral out of control? How can we be satisfied that the benefits of identity cards outweigh the cost?
	Although a majority of the British public support ID cards, they do not want to pay for them. How will the Home Secretary bridge that gap? Can he give any assurances to people on low incomes or benefits that they will not have to pay? Will he exempt pensioners from any charges? Will he consider exempting them completely from the need to have ID cards?
	Like the majority of my colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee and with all the caveats that we expressed, I welcome the Bill.

Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to   follow the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), who boldly made the point that ID cards, perhaps illiberally but realistically, will have to be introduced on a compulsory basis. He was preceded by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who, in an articulate speech, made the case clearly against ID cards.
	It is interesting that the debate has veered for and against, with so many factors being mentioned both for and against the proposal. That was expressed nowhere more clearly than in the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), who spoke for   the cards, advocated the use of CCTV and said that pensioners should be spared. Yet the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made a similar speech and called the whole project an expensive fiasco.
	The debate started in tempestuous fashion with the Home Secretary being given a rough time on his first outing but taking a huge number of interventions and, frankly, dealing with them with one or two reservations. I have to say that the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) made a very much better case for introducing ID cards. I found his case much more convincing and I wonder why the articulate nature of that speech has so far not been recognised by those on the Government Front Bench.
	Most clearly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the shadow Home Secretary, laid out the five tests that Conservative Front Benchers have put forward. Whichever way we look at the issue, everybody—for or against—acknowledges the fact that the five tests must be considered for their value.
	We heard a curious speech against identity cards from the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who performed a U-turn and gave us an extraordinary monologue on not chasing the 80 per cent. in favour but standing on principle. Well, every man to his own, but I   thought his most telling point came at the end of his articulate speech, when he said that the public's perception of the cards would evolve as the whole case developed. That point was clearly emphasised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), who was also speaking against.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) also made that point, speaking for identity cards. He added, however, that although he approves of the notion, the Government have lost the trust of the public, and therefore the issue will need the   closest of scrutiny as the Bill goes through the House.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) argued for the use of identity cards. My right hon. Friend made the point that the cards need to be heavily amended, particularly in respect of the need for the commissioner to be accountable directly to Parliament, while the right hon. Gentleman again made the point about the need for proper scrutiny. However, he and a number of other Members referred to the fact that driving licences were used in Northern Ireland as a form of identity card. I   shall return to that in a moment.
	Powerful speeches were made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). Both are against. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden spoke of a solution looking for   problems, while my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to the whole issue being an empty vessel and secondary legislation being needed to deal with the thing properly.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) spoke clearly in favour of identity cards, saying that this was the subject of his maiden speech probably more years ago than we would care to mention. [Interruption.] Thirty years ago, I am told from the rear.
	Identity cards have been used before, albeit not quite in such a way, in Northern Ireland. This was mentioned by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). Speaking from personal experience, I know that when the identity card in the shape of a driving licence with a photograph was introduced in Northern Ireland, we were told—I was on duty over there—that this would be a clear case of our being helped significantly in the fight against terrorism.
	I have to say that I take a different view, as the measure did not seem to make any difference at all. The cards were used only by drivers. I acknowledge that that was a long time ago and that the biometric capabilities of the new cards might make a difference. The fact remains that this country is not ignorant about the use of ID cards against terrorism. Similarly, a number of right hon. and hon. Members—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Too many private conversations are taking place in the House. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House, and he should be heard.

Patrick Mercer: Similarly, a number of right hon. and hon. Members made the point that cards would not have helped in Madrid. It is worth bearing in mind, though, the fact that the Spanish authorities had used such cards at some length against identified terrorist organisations such as ETA. The events of 11 March this year had been rehearsed by ETA at Christmas last year, and the use of such cards had made a considerable impact on ETA, and had in part caused that incident to be called off.
	Later, when Islamist fundamentalists picked up the same style of attack, it was clear that identity cards were not going to help against a new style of terrorism. The whole element of using cards against "clean skins", to use the vernacular, will be very much more difficult. In introducing these cards, will the Government make clear the sort of terrorism against which cards have been useful in the past? Such cards are less likely to be useful in future unless the biometrics prove capable of being used.
	This scheme will take years to implement. I am concerned that, as the hon. and learned Member for Medway pointed out, ID cards will act as a pass rather than as identification—that once the card is shown to a   soldier, policeman or security worker, any individual will be able to get past that checkpoint and into a building. The fact remains, above and beyond everything else, that to help the Home Secretary with this business, he needs a Minister for homeland security. This will be the most enormous burden on him, and I am sure that the introduction of such a post would be hugely helpful.
	While supporting the Bill, I want to iterate the words of many right hon. and hon. Members: if the Bill is to make any sense whatever, the five tests that we have identified will have to be examined. Above and beyond everything else, the Bill will have to be subject to the scrutiny of a Joint Committee of both Houses.

Des Browne: Like the curate's egg, this debate has been good in parts. I do not want to be too ungracious—I welcome the Conservative party's support, but on occasions tonight I would have much preferred its Front Benchers not to have spoken in support of the measure. Otherwise, this has been a good debate.
	The debate has had its memorable moments. Apart from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's "maiden" speech, in which he took a significant number of interventions, with eminent skill, across the broad waterfront of policies, we heard a balanced contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), in which, in a comparatively short period and showing the benefits of brevity, he set out the case for identity cards. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), in another balanced contribution, did exactly the same.
	Among other memorable moments was the admission by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) that we need to spend money to put biometrics into passports. We now have the Liberal Democrats' support for that. Will he therefore now explain why he and his colleagues have been making an arithmetical calculation that takes all that money out—[Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that his calculation is on top of that. I can do the arithmetic as well as he can. The Liberal Democrats took the £450 million, which he now says must be spent on passports, added to that the £85 million, and the £50 million for verification, multiplied it by 10, and went around television and radio studios saying that the proposal will cost £5 billion, plus, in some cases, the £85 for each individual. Perhaps now we shall hear some honesty about the arithmetic of that policy from the Liberal Democrats, so that we can have a proper debate.

David Heath: Unaccountably, in his speech the Secretary of State forgot to return to the issue of costs,   as he said he would. Perhaps the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration will now tell us the exact cost of the readers that will be required for identity cards to have any functionality across the country.

Des Browne: The sort of readers that the hon. Gentleman suggests will be needed are not the test as to whether identity cards will have any functionality—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman stops baying like a child and waits for the full answer, he will get his answer. The functionality of an identity system, as we debated in great detail in the context of the identity card for the electoral system in Northern Ireland, depends on a number of layers, and can be used in different ways. Of course there will need to be readers, and if we are to use cards for access to public services that will need readers too, but each decision will need to be made on a case-by-case basis for the purposes of those public services, according to a cost-benefit analysis of what investment we need to put in to get the best benefit out—[Interruption.] That is the proper answer, and the hon. Gentleman knows fine well that it is.
	Another highlight of the debate was the comparison drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) between the Bill and his experience in the Soviet Union. That was stretching things a little, but otherwise he made some good points. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made a bilingual speech that contained some important points, although the argument, which is often trotted out in this context, about there being an accumulation of power by the Government, was misjudged. We are not doing that at all, as I shall explain in more detail later.

William Cash: Does the Minister accept that the history of such powers has been confined to times of emergency? In 1952 the courts disallowed identity cards on the grounds that there was no emergency at that time. That issue has not been examined in the debate, to my knowledge. Will the Minister tell me what specific emergency there is now?

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is right to say that—as other hon. Members and the excellent Library briefing papers for the debate have pointed out—the only history of identity cards in this country dates from wartime emergencies. However, as the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire coherently pointed out, we live in different times now, and we face a different threat. We have to adjust the way in which we develop our public policies to respond to that environment.
	I am not arguing that this is an emergency. I am arguing that, for a number of reasons—most of which I   hope to cover in the short time available—the time has come for identity cards in the United Kingdom.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister tell us, very simply, why the Government are not prepared to submit the Bill to the scrutiny of a Joint Committee?

Des Browne: Why is submitting the Bill to the scrutiny of a Joint Committee so important? With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have enormous respect as a parliamentarian, the idea strikes me as some sort of device. We can have the appropriate scrutiny of the Bill in the normal way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that clear, and it is very unlikely that I would give an answer different from the one that he has already given.

John Gummer: rose—

Des Browne: No, I shall not give way.
	The other highlight of the debate was the contribution by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), whom I heard give an almost identical speech in the Queen's Speech debate, not long ago. I am not saying that it was not a good speech: it was; indeed, it was worth listening to twice. However, the difference between the speech that he gave then and the one that he gave today is that—I hope that I recollect this correctly—he said that this policy had been hawked around by civil servants for years, and that when he was in government it was rejected. I am really sorry that his memory is so poor. He was a member of John Major's Government, who announced plans for an identity card scheme in August 1996. [Interruption.] Of course it was a voluntary scheme. They announced their scheme in that year's Queen's Speech and a draft identity card Bill was then announced, but they were unable to introduce it because the general election overtook them. The right hon. Gentleman says that their scheme was voluntary, as though that were a defence of his change of mind, which he has never admitted to in any previous debate. Of course, part of the criticism that he offered in the recent Queen's Speech debate was that a voluntary scheme would not work.
	In the time available, I shall be able to deal with only one or two of the major issues raised. First, let me deal with function creep, which is actually a convenient argument for those who oppose this Bill, because it allows them to debate the future rather than the present. They say, "This is what the process will lead to, so let us debate what the situation will be like in 10 years' time." Indeed, that is precisely what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) did. He went forward in time by 10 years in order to have the debate that he wanted to have, rather than discuss the Bill.
	The Government have gone to significant lengths to ensure that, in so far as any legislation can prevent function creep, the Bill will not result in it. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire invited me to reinforce that principle in Committee, and I will be happy to listen to any suggestions. But I will not   allow people to creep the Bill's functions by misrepresenting its provisions. With all due respect to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), that is exactly what he did when he said that criminal convictions could be added to the proposed register through secondary legislation. That cannot happen; only the information in schedule 1 can be recorded, which does not include criminal record information. He argued that such information can be added by amending the schedule through an order, but it cannot. Only registrable facts can be recorded, and as the definition in clause 1(5) shows, criminal records are not registrable.
	We have heard the same debate for months from the Opposition, who have set up a false prospectus. For a long time, the argument was that people will be required to carry ID cards. When we pointed out that the Government have made it clear throughout this debate that there would be no compulsion to carry ID cards, we were told that the system will not work unless there is compulsion. As a result, the basis of the debate was entirely misunderstood and misrepresented.
	This is a debate about identity cards, not about police functions or police powers. If there is to be a debate about terrorism, or about the powers of the police or any other agency to interdict terrorism, serious crime or   any other criminal activity—or, indeed, about any other aspect of public life—we ought to have it in a straightforward and honest fashion. It ought not to be included in a debate on identity cards. This debate is about our ability to give the citizens of this country the opportunity of the gold standard of identification that they are crying out for. They have in their wallets bits and pieces of identification that criminals throughout the country have the facility to copy and forge. Identity fraud alone is costing £1.3 billion; that is to say nothing of the cost to this and other countries of the use of false identities in terrorist activities.
	Independent measures of public opinion show that the longer the debate goes on, the greater the support for such a system. Indeed, a more recent public opinion poll than that used by some in this House—it was published in December—shows that 81 per cent. of the public support the use of ID cards. Indeed, 68 per cent. continue to support their use, even when it was explained that, in the context of a passport, the cost to them would be £85.
	This is a policy whose time has come, and I have absolutely no difficulty in commending it to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 306.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
	The House divided: Ayes 385, Noes 93.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.

IDENTITY CARDS BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Identity Cards Bill:
	Committal
	1.   The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2.   Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 27th January 2005.
	3.   The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4.   Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5.   Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	Programming Committee
	6.   Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Programming of proceedings
	7.   Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Paul Clark.]
	The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 163.

Question accordingly agreed to.

IDENTITY CARDS BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (1)(a)(Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Identity Cards Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	  (a)   such allowances to be paid to the National Identity Scheme Commissioner as the Treasury may determine;
	  (b)   any sums authorised or required to be paid by the Secretary of State for or in connection with the carrying out of his functions under that Act; and
	  (c)   any increase attributable to that Act in the sums which are payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Paul Clark.]
	The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 64.

Question accordingly agreed to.

IDENTITY CARDS BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Identity Cards Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
	(a)   the charging of fees in respect of functions carried out under that Act;
	(b)   the charging of fees in respect of consular functions within the meaning of section 1 of the Consular Fees Act 1980; and
	(c)   the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Paul Clark.]
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
	That, at this day's sitting, the Second Reading of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Paul Clark.]
	Question agreed to.

INCOME TAX (TRADING AND OTHER INCOME) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second reading committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Question agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Tax law rewrite bills).

INCOME TAX (TRADING AND OTHER INCOME) BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a), (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Bill, it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to tax which may arise from provisions restating, with minor changes, certain enactments relating to income tax on trading income, property income, savings and investment income and certain other income.—[Paul Clark.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Terms And Conditions Of Employment

That the draft Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Common Agricultural Policy: Reform Of The Sugar Sector

That this House takes note of European Union Document No.11491/04, Commission Communication on accomplishing a sustainable agricultural model for Europe through the reformed Common Agricultural Policy—sugar sector reform; and supports the Government's objective of achieving a more sustainable, market-based approach, in line with the reforms already agreed in June 2003 and April 2004 in other sectors, and consistent with the EU's wider trade and development objectives.—Paul Clark.]
	Question agreed to.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Ordered,
	That Dawn Primarolo be discharged from the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills and John Healey be added.— [Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION
	 — 
	Carers

Jane Griffiths: I am pleased to   have been asked by the organisation Carers Unite to present a petition on its behalf to Parliament. It contains the signatures of 4,876 people and states:
	To the House of Commons
	The petition of June Tagg and the organisation Carers Unite
	Declares that carers do not cease caring at retirement age yet lose their carers allowance at the age of 60. This may lead to hardship to people who have spent up to 30 or 40 years caring. The petitioners further declare that carers lose the opportunity for a career and the possibility of earning significant amounts of money. The petitioners also declare that carers in the UK save the Government £57 billion per annum.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring in legislation to increase the invalid care allowance to a minimum of £65 and ensure that all carers are entitled to the carers premium regardless of whether they are on income support.
	And the petitioners remain etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Paul Clark.]

Alistair Carmichael: I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on what is, from my constituency perspective, a very important topic. In the course of the next half hour, we will bandy around a lot of talk about renewable and sustainable energy. From the point of view of my health tonight, this has taken on a more personal nature than I anticipated when I applied for the debate.
	Much has been said about the emergence of the hydrogen economy. That term describes the use of hydrogen as an alternative fuel or energy carrier, typically into three main applications: first, as a replacement for petrol or diesel for powering vehicles; secondly, in a stationary fuel cell to provide electricity for buildings or remote power applications; and, thirdly, for portable power applications, where the fuel cell provides an alternative power source to batteries for laptop computers or mobile phones.
	One of the attractions of hydrogen as an energy carrier to the oil and automotive industries is that it can be produced from nuclear power and renewable sources through electrolysis or from hydrocarbons through reformation. The obvious synergy with the existing oil and gas industries makes the concept of a hydrogen economy compatible with all existing and emerging forms of energy production and applications, from nuclear and hydrocarbons to renewables.
	The Promoting Unst Renewable Energy—PURE—project in Shetland in my constituency uses renewable energy to produce hydrogen by electrolysis to provide a direct fossil fuel substitute. It has shown that it is technically possible to produce the island's energy needs locally, without any carbon emissions, and for the local community to own that means of production. That is why there is a growing sense of excitement in communities such as Shetland about the potential for others from the development of hydrogen technology. It has the potential to revolutionise and empower some of   our most economically fragile and peripheral communities.
	When the draft report on hydrogen technology in the United Kingdom was presented in January 2004, the point was made that energy security is regarded as an even greater political priority than the reduction of carbon emissions and the production of clean energy. The report highlighted several weaknesses in the Government's approach. Interviews with 14 senior civil servants involved in hydrogen policy revealed a need for a
	"clear, credible strategic framework for hydrogen energy in the United Kingdom, with Government facilitating the development of the strategy".
	However, it was also made clear that United Kingdom resource availability is a limiting factor and that
	"fragmentation and poor communication currently hinder Government action".
	Although it is acknowledged that hydrogen technology cuts across many Departments, it was also stated that there was no clear framework for leadership and communication. Officials admitted that there was no champion Department for hydrogen and that they did not know what other Departments were doing. They   also acknowledged that there are too many funding streams with not enough resources and that there is no single point of contact for external stakeholders.

Alex Salmond: I suspect that I am one of the few hon. Members who has driven a hydrogen fuel cell car, thanks to siGEN Ltd, which is based near Aberdeen airport.
	Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many companies that are involved in such technology argue that the Government require a clear strategy for deployment? Although a massive amount of research is taking place elsewhere in the world, especially in the United States, the opportunity that rural Scotland offers, with massive energy resources but an inability to get them to the point of use, could be addressed by a Government strategy on deployment.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point with which I would not argue. The potential exists for the development of commercial applications of hydrogen technology. The simple truth is that if we do not do it, we will end up buying in work that has been done elsewhere in the world because, as I   shall explain, other people are pushing the agenda. If we do not get our act together soon, we will miss the opportunity.
	I caution the hon. Gentleman against boasting about being the only hon. Member to have driven a hydrogen fuel cell car. He would be astonished by the number of people who told me in the past half hour that they must be one of the few in the House to have driven hydrogen cars.
	About €100 million of EU funding, matched by an equivalent amount of private investment, is being awarded to research and hydrogen and fuel cell demonstration projects after the first call for proposals by the sixth EU research framework programme. That will be reinforced via further calls for research and development proposals worth a public and private investment of €300 million, of which EU funding is €150 million.
	Those projects represent the initial phase and form a basis for the large-scale "Quick Start" initiative for hydrogen production and use, which is being launched jointly by Vice-President de Palacio and Commissioner Busquin. The European growth initiative earmarks an indicative €2.8 billion public and private funding for those partnerships over the next 10 years.
	The Government of Iceland, whose electricity is almost entirely derived from geothermal and hydro power, aim to become the world's first hydrogen economy, through a multi-million dollar partnership to convert Iceland's buses, cars and boats to the fuel over the next 30 years, exporting the rest to Europe. Following Iceland's lead, the Pacific island of Vanuatu has outlined its vision for a 100 per cent. hydrogen economy by 2010, based on renewable energy. Hawaii, rich in both solar and geothermal resources, recently established a public-private partnership to promote hydrogen in the island's energy economy, possibly exporting the excess to California. Surely, somewhere between Vanuatu and Hawaii on the one hand and Iceland on the other, there must be opportunities for Orkney and Shetland to find a place to fit in.
	Compared with countries such as the United States, Canada, Germany and Japan, the UK Government's commitment to developing a hydrogen economy has so far been lukewarm and public investment has been minimal. Quite simply, we are behind other countries in developing a hydrogen economy.
	Over the next 20 years, the world's largest economies—the USA, Japan and Europe—are committed to investing billions of pounds of public and private finance in hydrogen development. The Minister will be aware that BMW, for example, has already invested hundreds of millions of euros in the development of hydrogen cars and said recently that it would focus further support on parts of Europe where there has been a demonstrable commitment to providing the infrastructure to fuel its cars. All players in the public and private sectors agree that it is vital to establish demonstration projects and
	"supportive, appropriate environments for piloting the hydrogen economy."
	A coherent Government strategy is vital to my constituency. The Minister is, I hope, aware of the vast   potential for renewable energy production in the   northern isles. We feel that there is a genuine opportunity for the peripheral parts of the UK to be at the forefront of a new way of developing and distributing energy.
	The PURE project, of which I have already spoken, has shown a great deal of dynamism. Its recently published feasibility report on a hydrogen test energy study centre in Shetland shows just how carefully local people are assessing how we can best maximise these opportunities. If the Department could show the same dynamism as a community the size of Unst, our hydrogen economy would be in a much healthier state.
	The Minister has no doubt heard me speak before on the problems caused by the lack of an interconnector to the national grid from Shetland. At best, that situation will not change for at least a further eight years, but that constraint provides the rationale during this time for focusing on developing renewables-to-hydrogen pilot, demonstration and research schemes, which can create a significant number of quality jobs.
	Hydrogen technology can also help to overcome the intermittency of some renewable energy sources. It is often argued that wind turbines cannot be relied on to provide a significant proportion of our energy because it is not always windy. Some in my constituency might dispute that assertion, but hydrogen technology none the less enables energy to be stored and released when renewable energy supplies are lower.
	The development of the PURE project has been the subject of considerable public consultation and public awareness raising in Unst and Shetland as a whole. Generally, the reaction has been favourable. The project demonstrates the production of hydrogen from wind power, the storage of wind power in the form of hydrogen, the conversion of stored hydrogen back to electricity available on demand and the use of hydrogen as an automotive fuel for a car converted to run on hydrogen by a Shetland graduate.

Lembit �pik: I applaud my hon. Friend for taking such an insightful look into the future of energy production, but does he agree that this could solve many of our problems with aviation pollution? Although the technology may not yet be fully developed, it seems likely that we will be able to power aircraft with hydrogen technology, which would bring benefits to the Orkneys, as well as to other places, which could be leading on this.

Alistair Carmichael: My hon. Friend will be aware of the impact of the increased use of aviation fuel in recent years on our ability to meet carbon dioxide targets. His point about using hydrogen for aviation is perhaps real blue-skies work, in every sense of the term, but every journey starts with the smallest step and we will never get there if we do not do the work on the other aspects that I have referred to.
	On the commercial front, Shetland Composites collaborated with BOC, BP and siGEN, to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred, to design and build an eco-marathon car fitted with a fuel cell installed by Ross Gazey. This project was largely privately financed.
	At the same time, two intermediate-sized commercial projects, involving the establishment of renewable energy-powered hydrogen production systems, sized at several megawatts, are currently being discussed by Shetland Islands council. Those are large, well-resourced projects. Over the past year, young Shetland graduates Ross Gazey and David Sutherland have been involved in most of the principal hydrogen fuel cell installations in the UK: Tees valley, HARI at Loughborough, AMEC in Aberdeen, and most recently, the Trafalgar square Christmas tree lights.
	I have dwelt at some length on the various local projects in Shetland. I have done so because I wish to highlight to the Minister the enthusiasm in the communities. His predecessor was good at visiting Shetland, and I hope that he will find time to visit the constituency, too. Energy, be it hydrocarbons or renewables through wind and wave generation, is of supreme importance to us, and the role of the Energy Minister is keenly followed in the northern isles.
	For us and other rural areas to take full advantage of the investment opportunities arising out of local hydrogen projects, there is a need for a clear political commitment in the United Kingdom and a corresponding commitment to public investment in it. The reason that we seek the UK Government's commitment now to the future development of a hydrogen economy is that, in combination with their existing commitment to renewable energy, they can acquire ownership over the production and supply of all their future energy needs.
	The potential for community ownership is perhaps most potent, particularly in the isles. The Minister will have heard me speak previously on the subject of petrol prices in the isles, where we routinely pay 10p to 15p per litre more than the rest of the country for petrol and diesel. If we can produce hydrogen as an automotive fuel, and if we do that from our renewable resources, we will no longer be at the mercy of oil companies, distributors and others who take their cut, resulting in us paying so much extra.
	I hope that the Government have given serious consideration to the January report. There is still a need for the Department of Trade and Industry to raise its game in this area. The exceptional work being done by the Unst partnership has the potential to produce a secure supply of clean energy, but that will be realised only if the Government establish a clear and effective framework in which the industry can flourish.

Mike O'Brien: I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing this debate. During the coming new year, I hope to be able to visit the Shetland Islands and perhaps see some of the developments taking place there.
	Let us imagine a world in which energy can be produced without using fossil fuels, where cars can run cleanly and quietly, emitting only a stream of water vapour, and where every country has access to clean and sustainable energy suppliesand islands, too, on a local basis. That is the long-term goal of the so-called hydrogen economy. It is not difficult to see why.
	Existing sources of fossil fuels are finite, and some are in politically unstable countries and regions of the world. Moreover, fossil fuels are contributing to climate change because of the emissions of carbon dioxide that are a by-product of their use. Hydrogen can be burned to produce energy, without tailpipe CO 2 emissions and with very low or even no emissions of atmospheric pollutants such as particulates. Even better, it can be converted into electricity using a novel technologyfuel cells, with water vapour as the only by-product. Many now believe that for transport, fuel cells running on hydrogen will be the long-term replacement for the internal combustion engine.
	There are, however, some major difficulties. The first major issue is hydrogen production. Hydrogen, like electricity, requires a source of energy to make it. Fortunately, hydrogen can be produced via a number of routes, thereby contributing to security of energy supply. Unfortunately, all those routes currently result in hydrogen being more expensive than the fuels that it is intended to replacein some cases, much more expensive.
	Depending on the method, there may also be significant emissions of CO 2 . Hydrogen is also difficult to store, especially on board a vehicle. A breakthrough in storage, perhaps using solid-state methods, would certainly give a major boost to the deployment of fuel cell vehicles. Storage limitations also add to the costs of distribution. Transporting large quantities of hydrogen may one day be possible through dedicated pipelineswe shall have to see. It is done on a small scale at the moment, but doing it on a large scale will require a lot of research to ensure that there is the right amount of pressure and capacity, and such investments will not be made until there is a prospect of sufficient demand to justify them.
	Fuel cells are at present the best technology for converting hydrogen to electric power. They offer high efficiencies and zero emissions at the point of use, and many believe that they are the only technology with the potential to replace the internal combustion engine in buses, trucks, lorries and cars. Fuel cells using a range of fuels also have potential applications for stationary power, including combined heat and power, andin the long term, perhapsfor portable power in devices such as power tools. However, they are currently too expensive, particularly for transport applications, and durability needs to be improved.
	For those reasons, commercialisation of exclusively fuel cell-driven vehicles is unlikely to occur on any significant scale before 2020. We can see prototypes, and even now we can see how partially hydrogen-powered vehicles can be used in our cities, as the hon. Gentleman said. None the less, we need quite a lot of scientific development to achieve the sort of breakthrough we need for real commercialisation.
	The Government have had a programme to support fuel cell technology for many years. More specifically on hydrogen, the Department of Trade and Industry recently commissioned a study to develop a strategic framework for hydrogen energy activities in the UK. That was undertaken by E4tech, Element Energy and Eoin Lees Energy, and has just reported. A report of the analysis is being placed on the DTI's sustainable energy policy network website. We will consider the specific recommendations carefully, and hope to publish them, with our response, by the end of February 2005. As the hon. Gentleman can see, we are taking this matter seriously, and we are moving forward with recommendations such as those suggested.
	The key energy priorities beyond 2020 are cost-competitive CO 2 reduction and improved upstream energy security. By 2030, hydrogen energy could provide cost-competitive CO 2 reductions in transport via six routes, all involving fuel cell vehicles. They also offer energy security, and the routes feature low-CO 2 energy from sources such as renewable or nuclear electricity, or fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage.
	No single chain will be sufficient to meet all the UK's needs, and some chains may subsequently be ruled out, for various reasons.

Alex Salmond: I am listening to what the Minister is saying, but bearing in mind what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has advocated, is it not possible that the economics of fuel cell use, particularly for transport, might be very different, and viable much earlier, in remote rural areas with ample supplies of renewable generation of power, if there were a Government strategy to help with deployment? Is it not possible that the economics in areas such as islands and rural areas might be different, and viability might be earlier, than in the broader picture?

Mike O'Brien: What is possible and what is likely may be two different things, and it is important not to make false promises. People must know that the promises being made to them are deliverable, and the Government believe that ours are. Others may take the   view that they can make promises and not deliver them, but we do not.
	We are looking at the report that has just come out. We will examine the recommendations, but we believe that hydrogen has the potential to provide greater energy security in the longer term for the islands and various other parts of the UK that are more difficult to access. However, we have to be realistic about time scales. We must make only those commitments that we can really deliver on, rather than holding out ephemeral images that might take a very long time indeed to deliver on. We need to be very careful about making false promises.

Alistair Carmichael: I fully accept all that the Minister says about the long time scales involved, but can he give me some assurance that there will be a Government strategy aimed at driving this process forward? Does he accept that the Government have a role to play, and that their strategy could serve to lengthen, as well as to shorten, these time scales?

Mike O'Brien: I certainly believe that an international strategy to develop this technology, as opposed to the strategy of a single Government, can shorten time scales. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the US Government have embarked on a significant programme and we are working with them very closely. A few weeks ago, I spoke to the then acting US Deputy Secretary of Energy, who, even during the presidential election campaign, came to London to speak at a conference because of the importance of driving through the hydrogen agenda. We both agreed that such technology needs to be developed and that we would work closely to do so. So it is important that we have not just a Government strategy but an international one, in order to drive forward this broad-based scientific knowledge. The potential for its future long-term development could be quite significant.
	I believe that, as the hon. Gentleman says, the UK can play a significant role in developing the options for the   hydrogen economy. In some cases, this will be on a go-it-alone basis, but as I said, it will increasingly involve international co-operation. I am pleased that the   UK is already participating in the main international forums: the European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform, the International Energy Agency's Implementing Agreement, the IEA's Hydrogen Coordination Group, and the US-led International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy. We have excellent wind and marine energy resources, which we are dedicated to exploiting for the purposes of carbon emissions reduction. We have the potential to build on this, making use of the skills of the UK oil and gas industry to develop experimental hydrogen infrastructures, which could lead to products and services for export in the long term.
	Hydrogen is of course of particular relevance to remote areas of the UK with strong renewable energy resources. Areas such as the highlands and islands are already facing the challenge of exploiting these resources when the electricity grid's capacity to carry electricity to mainland UK markets is severely strained. The PURE project in Unst, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, uses renewable energy to produce hydrogen by electrolysis, and it shows that it is technically possible to produce all energy needs locally, without creating carbon emissions. It is possible that in a future in which hydrogen is used for transport, hydrogen pipelines might offer a different means of carrying renewable energy to markets where it is needed. In addition, hydrogen production offers developers of renewables a second, potentially high-value revenue stream.
	All these issues require much more analysis and work. A small number of leading-edge developers of fuel cell stacks and components and energy and industrial gas companies are already participating in hydrogen energy projects around the world. I recently helped to launch the new headquarters of a company that has only recently entered the market. I shall not name it, but it has managed almost overnight to double its value because of the serious interest in the UK and abroad in the development of hydrogen fuel cells.
	The UK Sustainable Hydrogen Energy Consortium, established under the Supergen programme, is undertaking research on solid state hydrogen storage methods and also techno-socio-economic analysis on the hydrogen economy and all the implications that it will have for our society. Those implications are indeed potentially quite significant, particularly in areas such as the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is obvious that there are potentials that need to be explored. I can therefore assure him that the Government are alive to the issues of the hydrogen economy. We are committed to making sure that Britain and the whole of the UK plays a significant role in developing it.
	May I say that the champion Department for hydrogen is the Department of Trade and Industry. The hydrogen highway is, I believe, opening up before us and I want to see the UK playing a leading role in taking forward the development of hydrogen energy. It will be a long haul. We have to be realistic about that, but the scale of the environmental and energy challenges that we face means that we cannot duck the issue. With the hydrogen highway opening up before us, we need to be ambitious about its potential, but we also need to recognise that we must be realistic on the time scales. We are starting to move down that road at an increasing rate. The rate of change will pick up and the potential is enormous, so we must realise it. I am very much in agreement with the hon. Gentleman as to the spirit of what he says, but I want to be sure that we are delivering something that we can realistically promise to deliver. We need to work through the science with care.
	Finally, I offer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all Members the season's greetings.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.